It supports business applications for performance testing across various domains, such as retail, financial services, and banking. They had already procured a tool, LoadRunner, for use in their environment, whether on-prem or in the cloud. I've worked on numerous use cases that vary depending on the sector, like banking or insurance, as each sector has its requirements.

This tool has specific components, like LoadRunner Virtual User Generator for scripting, and execution windows, such as LoadRunner Cloud or Performance Center. It’s divided into three parts: scripting and code development are handled by one component, execution by another, and analysis by a separate file. This makes it user-friendly and easy to understand. In comparison, JMeter, which is open-source, can feel a bit clumsy. NeoLoad, on the other hand, is a good alternative and performs well, as I’ve worked with both. However, due to customer requirements, I procured LoadRunner, and we continue to use it. So, there was no option but to go with LoadRunner. In terms of setup and usability, it’s straightforward. If I were to rate the leading tools in the market, LoadRunner comes first, followed by NeoLoad. Based on my experience and colleague feedback, these are the most commonly used project tools.

The main difference is the interface; the look and feel have changed, but the background setup and configuration remain the same. The project admin team had already set up LoadRunner Cloud in our environment.

Since AI plays a major role in today's world, many tools are expected to integrate with it. If LoadRunner has AI integration, that would be a great feature.

In past projects, including those with LoadRunner and NeoLoad, clients often asked about integrating CI/CD pipelines, such as using Jenkins to automate the triggering process. I’ve done POCs on this, and it’s possible. Once set up, the pipeline can automatically execute tests without manual intervention.

I have been using OpenText LoadRunner Cloud for ten years.

From your experience, there are typically two options when purchasing a license: with or without support. Opting for support has been beneficial, especially when issues arise.

For instance, you mentioned a colleague facing a problem where they couldn't capture an application's network due to some background package being installed. After raising a request, the vendor support team from OpenText connected within 24 hours, set up a meeting, and provided helpful suggestions. Although it took a few days to understand and resolve the issue fully, the support was proactive and responsive.

Both LoadRunner and NeoLoad seem to offer efficient and timely support, ensuring users can get assistance when needed, which adds value to the tools themselves.

Positive

It's quite simple and user-friendly. Anyone with some LoadRunner experience can easily adapt.

The cloud configuration setup and server access can be tricky, as we don't usually get direct access. Sometimes, even after the configuration is supposedly done, problems arise when we start testing. For example, after developing a script locally, I occasionally face issues executing it on the Cloud LoadRunner machine. The test doesn't start, and I can't review the results. This usually happens if the configuration isn't done properly. I have to check the cloud-based machines and verify the IP range of the virtual systems because Cloud LoadRunner doesn't use static IPs—it has a dynamic range. The IP range can vary, and it picks one by one where the problem arises.

When that happens, I need to check whether my application can access the cloud machines. We need to request firewall access, specifying the source and destination, to enable communication between the cloud machine and our application. On-prem setups are different; there’s a physical machine, and I have direct access. I can check the hostname of my application and verify access to the load generator. I can ping the machine, use Telnet, and quickly resolve the issue. The process feels more cumbersome in the cloud, especially when facing execution challenges.

I transitioned to the cloud just six months ago. I've worked on cloud-based environments for only six months after migrating from on-prem applications. This involved migrating existing scripts to the cloud and re-executing previous tests to compare performance between on-prem and cloud. The goal was to assess the differences between the two environments, as the client expects improved response times and overall performance due to the cloud's higher configurations. I’ve shared the results of these tests, which reflect those improvements

The pricing is high compared to other licensing tools like NeoLoad. It's not excessively expensive but higher than NeoLoad. However, in my experience, clients often weigh NeoLoad and LoadRunner equally. LoadRunner has been around for a long time, and while some companies have moved away from it, the higher pricing can be attributed to its support for multiple protocols. For instance, it supports over 40 protocols, including SAP, Citrix, Oracle databases, and batch testing. This wide range of protocol support is one reason for the higher cost. Depending on the applications being tested, whether desktop, Citrix or something else, you may need to purchase specific protocol-based licenses.

LoadRunner offers a free license for up to fifty users, which may not be adequate for most projects. Projects require more load to simulate real business scenarios, so a more comprehensive pricing model may be necessary.

Two main licensing budgets are to consider: one for LoadRunner and another for NeoLoad. If a project has no budget for purchasing a product and is looking for open-source tools, I highly recommend starting with Apache JMeter. However, it's important to note that JMeter may not be flexible enough for all requirements, especially for desktop applications, as it has limitations.

JMeter operates in a single interface and lacks commercial tools' structured reporting and usability features, making it less user-friendly. While it’s a good starting point due to being free, users may need extra effort to organize and interpret results.

We recently evaluated OpenText's LoadRunner and NeoLoad for a project. We engaged with both vendors to take demos and understand their licensing models. Generally, NeoLoad's pricing was comparable to LoadRunne

If it's in the cloud, there's a separate version called LoadRunner Cloud. We have both options on-prem and cloud. Some applications only support on-prem, while others are cloud-based, so we must test them in the cloud environment. In this account, we work with both environments. It's worth noting that around 90% of applications are moving to the cloud these days. In the cloud version of LoadRunner, the concept of manually adding load generators doesn't exist. You don't need to worry about adding load generators to the tool, a common challenge with on-prem setups. In on-prem projects, if there are ten load generators and others are using them, you must wait for availability before running your tests. LoadRunner Cloud automatically assigns the load generators.

If someone in my network is looking for a performance testing tool, I recommend LoadRunner, especially if the client has a sufficient budget. For clients using cloud-based applications, it's essential to consider LoadRunner's cloud environment, which requires specific infrastructure from OpenText. They can opt for the Performance Center without worrying about cloud infrastructure if their applications are on-premises.

The recommendation ultimately depends on whether their applications are cloud-based or on-premises. Additionally, pricing and supporting the required protocol play significant roles in decision-making. It’s important to assess which types of applications they are working with, such as web, Citrix, or Windows applications, to determine the necessary protocol licenses. Buying unnecessary protocols can lead to wasted expenses.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine-point five out of ten.

We use LoadRunner Cloud for working with banks, and I find the tool incredibly versatile for our varied load testing needs across different business units. Whether it is testing the API backend for core banking systems or the web frontend for digital applications, LoadRunner Cloud handles it all with ease. 

One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols. Unlike other tools, LoadRunner excels in integration and protocol support, ensuring it can capture data behind proxies and work seamlessly with diverse technology environments. This versatility makes it invaluable for testing applications across different platforms and protocols.

One area for improvement in LoadRunner Cloud, especially for agile models, is its limited support for functional testing alongside its robust non-functional testing capabilities. Unlike some other tools in the market that offer both functional and non-functional testing within a single platform, LoadRunner requires separate test scripts for each, doubling the testing effort.

I have been using OpenText LoadRunner Cloud for almost ten years.

LoadRunner Cloud's scalability has been reliable for my needs, although I haven't tested it on a very large scale like e-commerce platforms might require. As a bank, I have found it to be cloud-based and easily scalable, with no issues in distributing load or managing large tests.

OpenText's technical support is generally responsive and helpful. They address issues effectively, although specific or niche protocol requirements might take longer to resolve due to prioritization. Overall, I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We have used similar solutions like JMeter and NordLayer. LoadRunner's compatibility with mainframe systems, along with other monitoring tools like BMC Patrol, sets it apart from other options we have tried.

The solution is a bit expensive. The pay-as-you-go model offered by LoadRunner Cloud is important to us, especially when considering the cost-effectiveness of performance testing.

LoadRunner Cloud's infrastructure management-free approach is a big plus, especially for multi-geography organizations like banks. By leveraging cloud-based load generators, you can ensure native performance testing without the hassle of maintaining hardware. Plus, while there may not be direct cost savings, the convenience and flexibility of cloud deployment can lead to more efficient resource utilization and potentially lower operational overhead in the long run.

Overall, I would rate LoadRunner Cloud as a nine out of ten. It is technically superior and well-executed, but the cost is a drawback. Additionally, its focus on non-functional testing means separate scripts are needed for functional and non-functional testing, which can slow down testing processes. 

We are using all the indexes and the features provided by the solution.

We have an infrastructure that is developed on the cloud. We use the product because it is more feasible to have our applications on the cloud. It is a trustworthy brand. The data I present to my customers are to the point. I do not have to check on the matrices again to verify whether it is false.

The reports are very relevant to the customers’ expectations. The tool has its own APIs for its customers. It is very easy to collect the performance data. In the last year, we have executed major tests multiple times. It's very easy to use the APIs to collect our results and create a dashboard as per our needs.

It is very important to us that we can plan and run tests using LoadRunner Cloud without having to manage testing infrastructure. It was a niche requirement for us not to bother about those things and focus on the main targets. It is the best thing that we can get. The solution saves us money by not having to maintain hardware and the power costs associated with the hardware. We have saved 25% of the cost.

The product must provide agents to monitor servers. If we want to monitor our servers, we should be able to do it by integrating the servers with LoadRunner Cloud’s dashboards. The added feature will enable us to see exactly what is happening in the servers at a particular time.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

I haven’t seen any stability issues. The stability is good.

I have scaled the tool up to 1000 users. It comes with its cost.

I got a solution from the support team every time I had queries.

Positive

I have received an ROI from the product.

There are other tools that provide the cloud capabilities and key features that LoadRunner has, but LoadRunner‘s brand and trustworthiness are more important to me.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use OpenText LoadRunner Cloud for performance testing of our applications.

We migrated from on-premises LoadRunner Professional to LoadRunner Cloud because it offers geographically distributed compute resources that can be scaled up and down on demand, optimizing costs.

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud helps us save money through its flexible scheduling feature. We can shut down resources when not in use, minimizing costs.

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests.

We're interested in leveraging the scriptless automation capabilities available in several tools. Some of our less technically inclined manual QA testers find them insufficient. They crave drag-and-drop functionalities or more intuitive scriptless automation options. Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved.

I have been using OpenText LoadRunner Cloud for six months.

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is scalable.

Our OpenText Account Manager coordinates with their technical support to ensure tickets are routed and resolved efficiently.

Positive

With nearly 400 virtual machines to migrate, transitioning from on-premises to the cloud wasn't quick, but it proved to be a smooth process.

OpenText helped us with the migration.

The pay-as-you-go licensing model included in our cloud migration is a valuable feature. It ensures we only pay for what we use, eliminating unnecessary fees during periods of low activity.

The pricing for OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is average.

I would rate OpenText LoadRunner Cloud a nine out of ten. While OpenText LoadRunner Cloud boasts many AML capabilities, we're still exploring its full potential.

We do load testing with LoadRunner Cloud. LoadRunner itself is cloud-hosted, but we load test the applications that are hosted on-premises or in our application data center. 

By implementing LoadRunner Cloud, we wanted to make sure that our applications are stable when there is a peak load with 3,000 or 4,000 users. We wanted to make sure that our applications are stable at any given point. To validate that, we are using LoadRunner Cloud. We are putting our expected load through LoadRunner and making sure our applications are stable.

We can plan and run tests using LoadRunner Cloud without having to manage testing infrastructure. That is very helpful. One of the reasons why we moved to LoadRunner Cloud was that they manage the infrastructure, and it is up 99% of the time. We used to support Performance Center, which was on-premise, and we also support application servers and all the load generators. It is a lot of work to manage them. Migrations, security scans, and all the patching take a lot of time, whereas, with the cloud option, our work is reduced by 50% to 60%. We can now focus on testing instead of managing the whole infrastructure. LoadRunner Cloud has been very helpful. It is stable and user-friendly. They provide scalability. They have a flexible licensing model, so everything is great.

LoadRunner Cloud has partially saved us money by not having to maintain hardware and the power costs associated with that hardware. In my company, we are still using on-premise load generators, so in our case, the savings are a little bit less, but any other company that has all public-facing or hosted applications does not need to spend any money on on-premise infrastructure. Because we are using a hybrid version, we are still spending some money.

The beauty of LoadRunner Cloud is that we can use the load generator that is hosted by us on-premises, and we also have the option to use their hosted load generator. If it is a public-hosted application, we can also use their public-hosted load generator, but in our case, all our applications are hosted in our data center, so we are using the on-premise load generator. We have the option to deploy those load generators as we want. We have deployed our VMs there. We have deployed them in our OCP cluster, and we have also deployed them in our AWS instance. On a day-to-day basis, we do load testing of our applications, and that load is distributed with a different load generator.

Initially, there were a couple of things, but they got resolved. When they released it three years back, they were not supporting multifactor authentication. We use Okta. In my business unit, we are using Okta integration or authentication. They were not supporting that earlier, but we requested them, and they implemented it. At this time, I do not see anything that they need to improve in existing features.

In terms of new features, they can natively integrate with Chaos engineering tools such as Chaos Monkey and AWS FIS. With LoadRunner, we can generate load, and if Chaos tools are also supported natively, it will help to get everything together.

I have been using LoadRunner for 15 years, but we have been using LoadRunner Cloud for almost three years. 

I have not seen any issues on that side of it. In three years, I have seen only one unplanned outage. Other than that, everything has been great. I have not seen any performance issues.

Its scalability is great. It is highly scalable. You can put as much load as you want as long as you have the license. They are supporting both licenses. You can pre-purchase a license or you can purchase over the cloud. They support scalability on the user side as well as the load side. In our case, we also have on-premises load generators. They support all types. It is easily scalable.

They are very good. I am supporting multiple tools. Support-wise, they are very good. In HP days, it was not great, but with Micro Focus and now OpenText, the support is better.

We reach out to them when we face any issues. Because it is cloud-hosted, we reach out to them and open a ticket if we are trying to start the load, but we are not seeing any screen or have any other issue. Within SLA, they reach out to us. If it is a new feature request, they reach out to us. We also have monthly calls with their customer success manager. They keep us up to date and give us all the information about the new things that are coming. They also send notifications beforehand when they have any maintenance scheduled. The communication and support have been good.

I would rate their support a nine out of ten. I am taking one point off because sometimes, it can take a few cycles to explain the issue to the support, but that is applicable to any tool. Overall, I am satisfied with their support.

Positive

Before this, we had the Performance Center tool, which was a Micro Focus tool. They are in the same line. Performance Center was on-premises, whereas LoadRunner Cloud is vendor-hosted. The base functionalities remain mostly the same. The main difference is the way we access them.

Performance Center only supported IE. Users using a MacBook could not access Performance Center, whereas LoadRunner Cloud is cross-browser. We can access the tool from any browser, which is very helpful, so one of the reasons for moving from Performance Center to LoadRunner Cloud was that LoadRunner Cloud supported different browsers, and accessing it was easy.

I was involved in its onboarding. It was easy. Because we did not plan to migrate anything, in our case, it was easy. We had ten years of data, but when we moved, we decided to not migrate that data because we wanted to start fresh. For us, it was very easy, but I do not know what options people have if they plan to migrate their data.

We did not calculate the ROI, but the benefits are definitely there. We are testing most of the customer-facing applications before putting them out there, and we are able to ensure that our applications are able to handle the load.

It is neither costly nor cheap. It is not too high and not too low. I know the price of other tools, and LoadRunner Cloud's price is in the medium range.

I did a PoC with other tools such as Flood, NeoLoad, and BlazeMeter. In my company, we are supporting multiple protocols testing. For web and API testing, any tool is good, but when it comes to RDP and Citrix protocols, LoadRunner is at the top in the market for supporting all different protocols.

If you are looking for only web or web service protocols, you can find a cheaper solution, but if you have any other protocol testing, then use LoadRunner because LoadRunner is the only tool available in the market that supports multiple protocol testing. For load testing, there are a number of tools, but they only support web or web services protocols, and not any other, so make sure you know what you are looking for.

Overall, I would rate LoadRunner Cloud an eight out of ten. For performance testing, I have not seen any other tool close to an eight.

We use OpenText LoadRunner Cloud for different types of testing, including load testing, performance testing, etc.

The product’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement. Additionally, its setup process is accessible as well.

We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup. They should work on this particular area of improvement.

We have been using OpenText LoadRunner Cloud for nine to ten years.

The product is more stable compared to other vendors like NeoLoad and JMeter.

It is a scalable platform. I rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

The product’s technical support team’s response time could be better.

Neutral

We use NeoLoad and JMeter.

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud’s setup is straightforward. I rate the process a nine out of ten. Although, I rate the process for the on-premises version a seven out of ten as we face challenges there. The on-cloud setup takes four to five hours to complete. It takes longer if there are some additional protocols included.

One executive from our team and one from LoadRunner’s team work on the on-cloud setup process.

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is economical. However, it is expensive compared to other tools.

I recommend the product for performing testing of short windows. It would help if you opted for other tools, in case you are working with long windows. I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I have been using the solution for testing Salesforce and a few other applications.

The solution has improved the performance of the software.

The solution is intuitive, easy to use and navigate.

They should minimize the use of coding for the solution. Also, they should include features to import other scripts without rewriting them.

I have been using the solution since 2019.

It is a stable solution.

The solution is scalable. I rate its scalability between a seven and nine out of ten.

The solution's technical support has been good.

Positive

We have used StormRunner and JMeter before. Also, we are doing a proof-of-concept for NeoLoad.

The solution's setup process was easy. Although, we encountered a few issues sometimes.

The solution is expensive. There should be a version that optimizes the price-to-performance ratio for the service package.

The solution is costly. I rate it a nine out of ten.