Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud)

I utilize its integration with CI/CD pipelines by trying that out.

The most valuable features I have found in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud)  are that everything is online and centralized, so I do not need to go anywhere to check the configuration and everything.

OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) 's advanced analytics help identify performance bottlenecks because whenever we are executing the test scripts, it shows a good analytics view where we can simply check which APIs are not performing well.

The cloud-based load generators in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) have benefited my testing setup because we can generate the load across the globe, which was previously a little bit difficult on the on-premises version.

The user interface in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) is intuitive and this will be easy to communicate and collaborate amongst the team also because sharing the online URL with the team, they can simply check the analysis and everything.

Regarding improvements in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud), the initial configuration where we have to set up orchestration is something that could be improved. If they make it more user-friendly or provide a wizard to set up rather than having complexity, that will be helpful. The database schema and everything, if they generate on the fly, that will be quite helpful, rather than creating it on our own.

There is room for improvement when it comes to response time and first-level support quality. If they provide local language support, that will be helpful.

I have been working with OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) for almost more than three years now.

OpenText  support team was quite helpful.

In my case, the initial setup of OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) took almost two days of time with the queries and all.

I needed only myself for the full implementation of OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud), with the help of OpenText  support team.

I have seen a return on investment with OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud); the analysis part is quite helpful, which is quite more descriptive than the other products.

As for the pricing of OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud), I find it quite expensive compared to other products in the market.

Before choosing OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud), I evaluated other options, including JMeter .

OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) has helped my development cycles as it was quite helpful.

The centralized real-time monitoring and reporting features in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) have helped collaboration in my team as all the data is sitting at one place and we can share it among different teams.

In the future, I would like to see some additional features in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud), such as BI tool performance testing or some job-related things which are running in the background.

The BI tool performance testing feature should be in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud).

I rate OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) overall at eight out of ten.

In my daily use case for OpenText LoadRunner Cloud , I am using the LRE version R2 2023, utilizing four load generators, and while it is okay, sometimes I face issues with the script where the support team takes more time to resolve those issues.

The most useful features of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud  include getting load through the Performance Center , which is part of the cloud version, where we can monitor CPU and memory utilization, and response times, but we do face configuration issues related to network discrepancies.

I am satisfied with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud as a product, but the ticket resolution time is concerning. The technical personnel are not able to fix issues quickly, which becomes problematic during critical situations.

Compared to previous support, I notice that while experts previously resolved issues immediately, current experts take more time to resolve issues, which is the main challenge we are facing.

They are now lacking regional support, which takes more time than it used to.

My suggestions for improvements to OpenText LoadRunner Cloud would be to have specific experts available who can resolve issues more quickly, as delays can impact project timelines significantly.

I have been working with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud for around four years.

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud can handle a decent amount of tests simultaneously, but as a small company, we primarily test 1,500 concurrent users and sometimes face issues such as load balancer problems.

Support-wise, I would rate OpenText LoadRunner Cloud a six out of ten.

I faced issues with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud support when a problem took three to four months to resolve, which negatively impacted our project, especially when key team members were unavailable during leave periods.

Regarding my experiences with the initial setup and deployment of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, everything is working as expected, but upgrades can take time, and I often encounter correlation issues that require debugging.

Currently, I am exploring other tools besides OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, such as NeoLoad , but my company is hesitant to invest due to the need to evaluate the advantages of LoadRunner  and the associated license costs.

LoadRunner  was chosen over tools such as NeoLoad  because, despite NeoLoad being a good option for maintenance, we face script maintenance issues in OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, which often leads to delays.

I am describing the support of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud regarding LoadRunner. In LoadRunner, I actually do not use real-time analytics. There are more monitoring tools available, but until now, we are just using the Performance Center  for monitoring and integrating with SolarWinds, while also considering integrating with Prometheus for real-time log checks.

I have not used OpenText LoadRunner Cloud with a CI/CD pipeline yet, but I think it would be beneficial to implement.

As for the integration needs of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, I am considering Prometheus because I am not doing real-time monitoring at present. The DBA team handles the SolarWinds part, and we require reports based on load testing duration.

I rate OpenText LoadRunner Cloud a seven out of ten.

I use OpenText LoadRunner Cloud  primarily to run scripts and tests within our performance testing workflows.

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud ’s features are technically similar to LoadRunner  Enterprise or the standalone controller. However, a significant difference is in its depth of analysis. In the standalone LoadRunner  analysis, I can merge graphs or set granular filters to obtain custom reports. Currently, LoadRunner Cloud provides direct custom reports, a feature that, if improved, might enhance our analysis. Another valuable aspect is the option to use JMX files, similar to JMeter  scripts, with LoadRunner.

The analysis feature in OpenText LoadRunner Cloud requires improvement. In-depth analysis tools found in the standalone LoadRunner analysis, such as graph merging and setting granularity, would be beneficial. Additionally, handling JMX scripts in LoadRunner Cloud could be more comprehensive. It would also be convenient if there were options to convert scripts from competitor tools like NeoLoad  to LoadRunner.

I have been using OpenText LoadRunner Cloud for about one and a half years. Initially, I used it a year ago, had a gap, and then started using it again in the last six months.

There is no difficulty in deploying OpenText LoadRunner Cloud from my perspective because a specific team in our organization handles the deployment of LoadRunner to our systems. We only use it once deployed.

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is extremely stable for our use case, and I would rate it a nine out of ten.

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is absolutely scalable. With load generators available, it is easily scalable to meet our needs.

I have not interacted directly with OpenText  support. However, based on feedback from colleagues, the support could be faster.

I have used NeoLoad  in past projects, but currently, I use only OpenText LoadRunner Cloud.

Our own organization has a team responsible for deploying all software, including OpenText LoadRunner Cloud. We did not rely on third-party services for deployment.

I have evaluated NeoLoad in my previous work assignments.

I would appreciate documentation or some links to videos on AI-driven testing strategies with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud. I rate OpenText LoadRunner Cloud ten out of ten.

Our clients use OpenText LoadRunner Cloud  to ensure performance by running load tests. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud  is one of the most accepted solutions available, and running it from the cloud can be a very effective solution depending on the customer.

The functionality of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is highly valuable. Its LoadRunner  functionality allows us to record a solution's networking protocol and replay them. We currently have a customer where we need to run 350,000 web services calls per hour. The ability of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud to handle such extensive functionality is impressive. It's the functionality of the LoadRunner  tool rather than the cloud solution itself that is crucial.

I have no real input on areas for improvement. It is fine as it is.

We have three to four years of experience with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud.

We rate the stability a seven out of ten. We haven't explored the tool deeply enough to find its limitations, so the score reflects our limited experience.

I would rate OpenText LoadRunner Cloud a ten out of ten for scalability. It is very scalable, and on the cloud, it's even more scalable, potentially unlimited.

The initial setup is complex, but that is the nature of the technology. It's not more complex than other tools we use, like QTest or JMeter . Given the complexity of emulating an application and ensuring security, it is expected to be complex.

The ROI is not necessarily cost savings. Sometimes a customer wants to use OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, or it's the only tool that will solve the problem depending on the application.

I would prefer it to be cheaper. On a scale of one to ten, the price is a five. It's delivering functionality, but we also use JMeter , which is free.

While using OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, we also use other solutions and are not tool-dependent. I rate the overall solution a six out of ten.

I use OpenText LoadRunner Cloud for projects with cloud-based applications, particularly for public websites and intensive user scenarios.

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud can scale in a cloud-based environment to support up to ten thousand concurrent users without capacity loss, which is not possible with on-premise solutions on personal machines. This scalability and network bandwidth capability are essential for high-scale load testing. Additionally, it allows me to upload common LoadRunner scripts to the cloud for testing without requiring a license for scripting tools, offering a flexible and comfortable high-scale load testing solution.

I expect an improvement in the cloud location offering to better serve local applications, particularly to enhance testing accuracy for users in regions like Thailand. AI-driven testing strategies also need more enhancement.

I have been working with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud for around three years.

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is web-based, so there is no need for installation.

I have faced several problems using the cloud in different locations, so I rate the stability a six out of ten.

The solution is highly scalable, which is its main feature. I would rate scalability a nine out of ten.

The technical support is rated as six out of ten. They have been slow in response, but it's important to note that OpenText has recently taken over Micro Focus. I believe this requires improved support.

LoadRunner Cloud helps with risk elimination by reducing performance degradation in production, ensuring a better end-user experience.

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud pricing is flexible, offering a more affordable solution compared to the more expensive on-premise LoadRunner. The hourly usage model allows cost-saving when used rightly.

There is no need for maintenance with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud since it is a subscription-based platform handled by its provider. Overall, I rate OpenText LoadRunner Cloud a seven out of ten. I recommend it based on its capability and reasonable pricing, especially for customers already using LoadRunner with limited user licenses.