We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."When someone in our organization wants to test web applications, they use Apache JMeter since they face no hurdles while using the solution."
"The solution's initial setup is easy."
"The solution is free. You don't need to worry about licensing costs."
"It is cost-effective and simple to use."
"We appreciate that the solution is free to use, as an open-source tool."
"It is easy to set up."
"It gives accurate results and recommendations that we can implement to enhance the performance of websites."
"This solution is very user-friendly, and allows for a lot of data capture when testing."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"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."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"There is some work to be done with the integration."
"The reporting section of the solution can be better."
"I sometimes found the documentation to be not as explanatory as I would've liked it. In the cases that I can think of, I was looking for a rather hand-holding approach with Step A, B, and C, but then I realized that with a product that is open source like this, you can't do handholding. That is because there are so many different uses and different unique environments and setups for it, but I remember thinking a few times that if they only just said this."
"The interface could be made more user-friendly."
"They should improve the solution on its UI front."
"In future releases, it would be helpful if there was an integration with ALM Octane."
"The solution's setup could be easier and security could be improved to minimize vulnerabilities."
"The tool should be made a bit more robust, and better support should be made available."
"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."
"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 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 specialist resources."
"The solution is expensive."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
Apache JMeter is ranked 3rd in API Testing Tools with 82 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 4th in API Testing Tools with 89 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". 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". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Katalon Studio, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite. See our Apache JMeter vs. OpenText UFT One report.
See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all API 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.