Forum Discussion

kashyapshah's avatar
kashyapshah
New Contributor
7 years ago

Comparison with HPE Performance Center

I am reaching out here in a bid to understand the features and capability of Smartbear’s LoadComplete and LoadUI performance testing tools in comparison with HPE Performance Center. Can someone provide some comparison covering the following points (plus any additional ones you would want to highlight) to give me a better understanding on these tools? It will help in any decision making if a change in tool set needs to be made. Thanks in advance! Features LoadComplete Performance Center 1. Complexity 2. Cost 3. Scripting Language 4. Protocols Supported 5. Test Execution 6. Distributed Testing and 7. Cloud Support 8. Test Reporting & Results 9. Scripting Language 10. Monitoring capabilities 11. Integrations with other 12. Test mgmt./testing tools 13. Cookie Management and 14. Caching 15. Performance test 16. management capabilities 17. User Connection speed 18. Emulation 19. Continuous Testing 20. Analysis & Reporting 21. Target Audience 22. Scalability

1 Reply

  • AlexKaras's avatar
    AlexKaras
    Champion Level 3

    Hi,

     

    I did not use HPE, so will not provide any comparison... :)

    As for LoadComplete and LoadUI: LoadUI (Pro) is not supported for several years already and evolved to LoadUI NG which is a part of the Ready! API platform. Though I do not think that its concept changed since old regular LoadUI. So, as it was mentioned in another thread (https://community.smartbear.com/t5/LoadComplete/LoadComplete/td-p/142862), LoadComplete is a load testing tool to emulate the load from regular human users. I.e. LoadComplete records the http(s) traffic from the browser (or application that generates http(s) traffic) and replays it then.

    LoadUI is a tool that is primarily intended to generate a load using SoapUI tests. SoapUI is a tool to perform API testing. I.e. it does not record the traffic, but instead makes it possible to call API functions exposed by the tested web service and verify obtained responses. LoadUI makes it possible to load the tested web service using SoapUI tests as a load source.

    So, if you need to (load) test an API - use SoapUI NG (with LoadUI NG). If you need to emulate the load from end-users - use LoadComplete.

     

    LoadComplete is documented extremely well and you should be able to find detailed answers on your questions in the documentation available at https://support.smartbear.com/viewarticle/78471/.

    Documentation for SoapUI and LoadUI is available at https://support.smartbear.com/readyapi/docs/index.html.

     

    Important note about scripting: while SoapUI supports scripting, both LoadUI and LoadComplete support parameterization but not scripting. It is my understanding that it was done for purpose because of performance considerations and scripting, actually, is not needed for load testing. One must clearly understand the difference between functional testing and load testing. The functional testing assumes some logic and conditional test branching and verification, so scripting is needed. Load testing, on the contrary, assumes execution of some certain scenario, but from a lot of users. Thus load testing needs parameterization, but scripting is not needed. If scenario branches, then two separate scenarios must be created and executed in load testing.