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.

Neutral

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.

Neutral

Neutral

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 are a banking institution, so the solution gets used for online banking and mobile banking services. 

In our organization, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud executes performance tasks, while Dynatrace is also used for performance testing and analytics. 

A vital feature of the solution is its ability to compose realistic scenarios for performance testing. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is highly scalable and can handle large user volumes. One crucial advantage of the solution is how it helps judge application scalability. 

Our company provides actionable intelligence to the development community and to DevOps. The solution has helped optimize the application in terms of the code base and tuning the environment.

Some improvements can be made in the solution's user interface and BLS. The vendor adopts new technologies quite late. 

I have been using OpenText LoadRunner Cloud for two years. 

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud has been a fairly stable solution for our organization. 

Around 60 engineers in our organization are using OpenText LoadRunner Cloud. It's a highly scalable solution; our company has a license for 10,000 users, and we can virtualize with the solution daily. 

A decent customer support is available for OpenText LoadRunner Cloud. I would rate the tech support a seven out of ten. 

Neutral

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud can be easily maintained. The primary workload is utilized during the initial setup, and as part of the maintenance, new instances for LoadRunners are generated. The maintenance of the solution also involves keeping track of how much space has been occupied by the log files.

A satisfying ROI can be realized with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud. 

It's a very expensive solution. Our organization would have probably struggled with a different tool because, in the market, there are varying customized tools aimed toward dedicated clients or enterprises.

The solution generates traffic on the infrastructure, which resembles end users. Depending on the performance of the underlying infrastructure and nodes of the architecture, our company team can report on the scalability of applications. 

The solution performs two types of tests: user interface testing, which is implemented primarily in our organization for online banking, and the other one is API level testing for mobile banking. In terms of the feature set, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is a market-leading application that has been around for 20 years. 

I have been working with the solution throughout the acquisition stages; the product used to be much better when it was primarily managed by Mercury. There are limited AI capabilities in the solution; when I was personally operating some smart scenarios using the feature of auto-scaling, I found it unsatisfying.

I would recommend the product to others based on its feature set and the level of support. I would rate OpenText LoadRunner Cloud as seven out of ten. There are no glaring weaknesses in the product, and it's good enough for its core purpose. 

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.

The solution is used for load performance testing activities.

The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool.

The product must improve support. The support team provides delayed responses. Many times, there are a lot of conversations between the support team and the technical team without any conclusions.

I have been using the solution for 14 to 15 years.

The tool is not perfectly stable.

Around 30 to 40 people use the tool in our organization.

The installation is not difficult, but it is a pretty lengthy process.

The product must improve its price. The solution’s price is considerably high. It is the highest in the market.

My company decided to use the product due to the technology support it provided. I would recommend the solution to someone with technology that other tools couldn’t support. Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.