OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. QAComplete

Micro Focus LoadRunner is good for scripting and running a load test, but should be providing better customer service in case of user facing any issues.

Incentivized

Very well suited to requirements management, test suite creation and defect management. Not suited to project/task management.

Incentivized

• Support of multiple protocols like HTTP, RDP, Citrix, SAP, Oracle Database 12c, AJAX Tru Client, SOAP-based calls and others which is why it is used widely in our organization as we are using various applications in an industry for different usage.
• Supporting the mobile agents which means it is not only used for web applications but also for mobile applications.
• Latest version of HP LoadRunner makes the scripting easy by replacing dynamic changes in the script using correlation parameters. This means less coding and we can focus on major issues if needed.
• Controller enhancements by specifying the cloud provider like Digital Ocean. We can provision our load generators with Amazon EC2, DigitalOcean and others.
• Analysis provides a nice HTML report on the test executed with all the necessary metrics. We can simply put more analysis if needed and it will be automatically embedded in an HTML report.

Incentivized

• Allows us to create individual tests then group them into comprehensive test plans.
• Allows me to specify custom fields that match our product features to categorize both tests and defects.
• Allows me to create a series of requirements then match tests against them for validation.

Incentivized

• Monitoring tools like SiteScope, AppDynamics should be used apart from HP Performance Center. Would be great if the tool can give good monitoring on app and db servers.
• As the load goes high, the cost increases. In the open source world, it's not a bad idea to consider the licensing cost.

Incentivized

• The user interface can be somewhat perplexing and difficult to navigate at times.
• Naming conventions aren't always succinct and additional training is needed by those who have more experience using the program.
• A modern refresh of the UI would help keep the product from looking dated.

Incentivized

I gave QAComplete this rating because though I do feel that it is a powerful tool, it's definitely not designed for the everyday user. Obviously the target demographic is QA specialists who should be team members that are very technical and methodical in their approaches. However, for the rest of the team, it can often time prove difficult to navigate. Also, the UI is in need of a serious refresh.

Incentivized

Customer service is not that great. It's difficult to get hold of someone if an issue is supposed to be addressed on an urgent basis. No online chat service readily available.

Incentivized

I have not had to work with their customer service directly yet. Our client has been utilizing this tool for years, so I would assume that the support they have received would be good enough to keep them wanting to continue to use the product.

Incentivized

Micro Focus LoadRunner fit well into our portfolio of tools with its long track record, ability to test near any application technology we adopt and allow for a single / cohesive toolset to drive our performance testing needs.

Incentivized

We had used FogBugz and Freshdesk for quite some time. I hadn't been exposed to QAComplete until recently during a project with one of our clients, but we are already starting to see the superior benefits of this product. Once you wrap your head around the interface and navigate to the bug reports, it becomes a very powerful tool.

Incentivized

• It has a positive impact as we know how PE testing is (performance).
• It helps with integrating data from various data streams and includes anomaly testing.
• It does a good job with the accuracy of results. The results are very accurate.

Incentivized

• From our side, it's been very easy to pick up on bugs reported by our clients. It's a great ROI for the cost as they are fairly minimal in comparison to other QA software.
• I think a negative impact can be the administration of QA items. It definitely feels a bit bogged down.
• My last negative would be that I don't believe it syncs in any way with the Atlassian software suite. I could be wrong on this but manual entry from system to system can be daunting at times.

Incentivized