We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"It is mostly user-friendly and usable."
"The initial setup was straightforward. I was able to download everything myself without any IT support."
"The product is good, and the concept is good as well."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"It allows you to work out how well you are doing project-wise because you see the number of scripts done, the number of tests run, and whether you have mapped all your requirements to it."
"We implemented through the vendor, who used highly-skilled professionals."
"IP Spoofing can be done using Performance Center."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The worst thing about it is it did not have zero footprint on your PC."
"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."
"They need to focus on minimizing the cost."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise needs to add more features for Citrix performance-based applications testing. This was one of the challenges we observed. Additionally, we experienced some APIs challenges."
"Dashboard creation should be implemented, so we can get the results in a desired format."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I need to spend a lot of time training people, while on other low-code or no-code platforms, I need not invest that much time."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"More real-time monitoring should be available for the system under test."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Eggplant Performance, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
