We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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."LoadRunner is a very sophisticated tool, and I can use many languages. For example, I can use Java. I can use C++. I can test the Internet of Things, FTP, mail, and Active Directory. It is very useful."
"Very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors. It also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation. In addition, we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website."
"The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to create performance test cases quickly and then execute them. It provides a lot of powerful features to do that very efficiently and effectively."
"Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use."
"Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"The initial start-up of Micro Focus LoadRunner could be improved. When we add 20 or 30 scripts, the refresh is completed one by one. I would like to be able to select all the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"The solution is expensive."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"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."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". 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 Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and Akamai CloudTest, 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.