We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."This solution is SaaS based so we can utilize cloud technology, which is less time consuming and saves a lot of of money."
"The reports are very relevant to the customers’ expectations."
"It is feature-rich. It supports most protocols, which is important because I am in charge of a team at the bank, and we do performance testing for all kinds of different applications. We have tons of them. We even do video streams."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The usability and ability to integrate with other solutions is quite good. When I use it in on Azure, then Red Hat is the most likely solution I use. When I use AWS, then I tend to use Lambda functions. In either case, it works well and you can use it either way."
"Keeping up with DevOps, thus the best feature of StormRunner is that we don't have to build and maintain infrastructure anymore."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"The solution supports a number of protocols."
"I think the number one feature everybody likes is the capability to easily generate virtual users as well as the reporting."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting, correlations, and parameterization. Debugging is also easy."
"What I like most in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the comparison between two different exhibitions which gives value to my company. I also like that the solution is user-friendly, especially in terms of making specific changes. For example, in the past, you can't see the changes when you upload scripts into the Performance Center, but now, it has that visibility, so whenever you want, you can change the script in the Performance Center. I also like that Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the only tool you can utilize for all your needs, even for different protocols and scripting. The solution also has the latest features, for example, networkability, where it can, within the UI, follow the waterfall model. You can use the insights in the Performance Center of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise to address or test URLs that usually take up much time."
"For me, LoadRunner stands out, especially with its reporting capabilities, the graphs that can be generated, and the unique feature of measuring our application's response alongside our infrastructure metrics, such as CPU, memory, or disk usage, all presented in graph form. This is something other applications struggle to match."
"The host performance testing of any application using a host/controller is the most valuable feature."
"I would like for there to be better integration with other tools so that when you do load testing you can also do a security check."
"We did have some challenges with the initial implementation."
"Reporting and analysis need improvement. Compared to the old school LoadRunner Windows application, the reporting and analysis are mediocre in LoadRunner Cloud."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"Their documentation is not technical enough for us. We would like to have much deeper technical documentation so that we can self-serve without constantly having to go back to them and ask."
"Improvements to the reporting would be good."
"The product must provide agents to monitor servers."
"The debugging feature needs to include graphs."
"Canned reports are always a challenge and a question with customers because customers want to see sexy reports."
"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."
"It's not that popular on the cloud."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise needs to improve reporting."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's reporting should be quicker, easier, and more flexible."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Supports multiple protocols and helps to ensure that our applications are stable at any given point". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter, Apache JMeter and Oracle Application Testing Suite, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center. See our OpenText LoadRunner Cloud vs. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
