OpenText LoadRunner Cloud vs OpenText UFT One comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
OpenText Logo
4,560 views|2,707 comparisons
92% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
10,771 views|6,566 comparisons
87% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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.
To learn more, read our detailed Performance Testing Tools Report (Updated: May 2024).
772,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The solution can scale.""It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users.""The reports are very relevant to the customers’ expectations.""The initial setup was straightforward.""The solution is easy to use.""It is feature-rich. It supports most protocols, which is important because I am in charge of a team at the bank, and we do performance testing for all kinds of different applications. We have tons of them. We even do video streams.""Keeping up with DevOps, thus the best feature of StormRunner is that we don't have to build and maintain infrastructure anymore.""The product’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement."

More OpenText LoadRunner Cloud Pros →

"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good.""With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources.""Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier.""With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files.""The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms.""The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies.""It's simple to set up.""The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."

More OpenText UFT One Pros →

Cons
"Its scripting features need improvement.""We are trying to put it into a complete CI/CD pipeline, but there are still some challenges when you try to run it through different protocols. The challenges are around how you can containerize applications. There are some limitations to some protocols, such as desktop. And when it comes to database testing, there are some things that we can't do through CI/CD.""The product price could be more affordable.""Improvements to the reporting would be good.""I would like for there to be better integration with other tools so that when you do load testing you can also do a security check.""Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved.""It should have a feature to report with a 99.9 percentile success rate.""The support team provides delayed responses."

More OpenText LoadRunner Cloud Cons →

"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests.""Technical support could be improved.""Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact.""The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails.""The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java.""The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script.""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.""Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."

More OpenText UFT One Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The pricing is very reasonable and the licensing is straightforward."
  • "There is no monthly or yearly cost but rather, the fees are based on the amount of traffic that you use."
  • "We make use of virtual user hours. We buy time in the LoadRunner Cloud. It costs around $80,000."
  • "Pricing is dependent on what you're referring to. If you're talking about the cloud, it's likely competitive. However, if you're talking about the on-premise version, professional or enterprise licenses are required. Prices are on the high side. They are not cheap."
  • "The solution is expensive."
  • "It is expensive compared to other tools."
  • "LoadRunner always had expensive pricing. At my company, we used to evaluate LoadRunner, but we stuck with Silk Performer because its pricing was always better in the past. I do feel that I got a fair deal this time. Our value-added reseller and our sales guy worked hard to give us a fair deal. I feel that we got a fair deal. We did not go for the pay-as-you-go deal. I did an upfront package. I prefer that. I want to know what my costs are."
  • "The solution’s price is considerably high."
  • More OpenText LoadRunner Cloud Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
  • "The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
  • "It's an expensive solution."
  • "For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
  • "The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
  • "The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
  • "The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
  • "The price is one aspect that could be improved."
  • More OpenText UFT One Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    772,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:I absolutely recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud. In fact, I consider it to be one of the best performance testing tools I like it because it provides many benefits. Some of the ones I find to… more »
    Top Answer:One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols.
    Top Answer: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.
    Top Answer:We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well… more »
    Top Answer:My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
    Top Answer:The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on… more »
    Ranking
    Views
    4,560
    Comparisons
    2,707
    Reviews
    14
    Average Words per Review
    602
    Rating
    8.6
    2nd
    Views
    10,771
    Comparisons
    6,566
    Reviews
    19
    Average Words per Review
    717
    Rating
    8.2
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, StormRunner Load, LoadRunner Cloud, and Micro Focus StormRunner Load
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    Learn More
    Overview
    Do your performance and load testing in the cloud. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud makes it easy to plan, run, and scale performance tests without the need to deploy and manage infrastructure.
    Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications. Read white paper
    Sample Customers
    Alfa Bank, N Brown Group, University of Copenhagen, McGraw-Hill, Cognizant
    Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm28%
    Educational Organization22%
    Retailer11%
    Government11%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm21%
    Computer Software Company14%
    Manufacturing Company10%
    Government8%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    Government6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business14%
    Midsize Enterprise19%
    Large Enterprise68%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise76%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise74%
    Buyer's Guide
    Performance Testing Tools
    May 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: May 2024.
    772,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Supports multiple protocols and helps to ensure that our applications are stable at any given point". 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 Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and Apica, 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.