OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. Spirent TestCenter

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
LoadRunner Professional
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
A solution simplifies performance load testing for colocated teams. With project-based capabilities, so teams can quickly identify abnormal application behavior.N/A
Spirent TestCenter
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
The vendor describes Spirent TestCenter is an end-to-end testing solution that delivers performance with deterministic answers. They state service providers, NEMs and enterprises use it to test, measure and validate their networks and deploy services with confidence—from traditional performance testing to the rigorous analysis of Virtualization, Cloud Computing, Mobile Backhaul, and High Speed Ethernet.N/A
Pricing
OpenText LoadRunner ProfessionalSpirent TestCenter
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
LoadRunner ProfessionalSpirent TestCenter
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
OpenText LoadRunner ProfessionalSpirent TestCenter
Considered Both Products
LoadRunner Professional
Chose LoadRunner Professional
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.
Chose LoadRunner Professional
While soasta is currently being used for cloud related applications, LR is specifically used to address the load testing on on-premise servers in our case.
Chose LoadRunner Professional
Loadrunner stacks up very well against these tools. All software have certain very strong features and that is what differentiates LoadRunner from all of these. It has accurate results and data. Reports are also very well formatted. Different data can be integrated and other …
Chose LoadRunner Professional
The biggest point of using HP LoadRunner is the response time numbers captured after executing the tests were more accurate when we generated the same by using tools like JMeter or NeoLoad though it involves a certain licensing cost but what [we] needed was trust and accuracy …
Chose LoadRunner Professional
HP performance center stacks up very well for front end applications. Need more improvements for API performance testing.
Chose LoadRunner Professional
Most of the above tools are pretty popular in the industry. These are tools that are way cheaper compared to the industry giant LoadRunner. Yet these tools have their own limitations and drawbacks. In BlazeMeter the user load cannot be modified during the test run. JMeter and …
Chose LoadRunner Professional
It was faster to script in HP LoadRunner than in JMeter. The main issue is the expense involved in the cost of the virtual users in HP LoadRunner. In time, it may be more cost effective to switch to JMeter when the number of virtual users increases.
Spirent TestCenter
Chose Spirent TestCenter
I wasn't able to specifically test other big products but I did use other free products in the past such as iperf, but free softwares don't allow the same level of support ans ease to use than Spirent
Features
OpenText LoadRunner ProfessionalSpirent TestCenter
Load Testing
Comparison of Load Testing features of Product A and Product B
OpenText LoadRunner Professional
8.4
Ratings
0% below category average
Spirent TestCenter
-
Ratings
End to end performance management9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Integrated performance data10.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Deployment model flexibility9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Real time monitoring6.10 Ratings00 Ratings
Automated anomaly detection8.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
OpenText LoadRunner ProfessionalSpirent TestCenter
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
JMeter
JMeter
Score 9.4 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
Enterprises
JMeter
JMeter
Score 9.4 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
OpenText LoadRunner ProfessionalSpirent TestCenter
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
7.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
3.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
OpenText LoadRunner ProfessionalSpirent TestCenter
Likelihood to Recommend
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.
Read full review
Spirent solution is well suited to qualify a Lan infrastructure bandwidth capacity or a device itself capacity such as a router or a firewall for example. But this solution in our case is also well suited to test a complex and numbered mpls environment. I would not recommend it to a small business as the solution is very expensive: châssis and card cost are expensive and the solution requires to be an advanced user in system, not only on network devices
Read full review
Pros
  • 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.
Read full review
  • Bandwidth test
  • QoS and traffic type generation
  • Software platform availability
  • Technical Support
Read full review
Cons
  • 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.
Read full review
  • QA
  • Various bugs to fix on software installation
  • Technical documentation
  • No Spirent classes available
  • Lack to fix major issues such as ntp for latency calculation
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
No answers on this topic
7 because they lack to improve some major bugs we have exchanged about with them
Read full review
Support Rating
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.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
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.
Read full review
I wasn't able to specifically test other big products but I did use other free products in the past such as iperf, but free softwares don't allow the same level of support ans ease to use than Spirent
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • 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.
Read full review
  • Allows to qualify a link or a project to validate end of this one
  • Allowed to detect various configuration issues that were fixed right after
  • Allow to use virtual machines for easy remote deploykents
  • Neharive: upgrade can depreciate products and newer products have sometimes better bandwidth capacity but less features
Read full review
ScreenShots