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."We use Apache JMeter for load testing, where we provide the throughput time."
"Scripting with the solution is good."
"It is open source as well as relatively extendable. It allows us to extend and add additional functionality and features. Its deployment is also very easy."
"It is scalable. You can scale up to 1,000 users in JMeter. If you can put up four slave servers, you can easily ramp up to 1,000 users."
"It's a free tool."
"We appreciate that the solution is free to use, as an open-source tool."
"The solution is scalable."
"We like that Apache JMeter has different features and different plugins and that they are free of charge."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"It is a stable solution."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"JMeter's reporting is extremely rudimentary. The fundamental reporting mechanisms need to be drastically improved. It doesn't utilize an automatic session management mechanism or methods other tools use like parsing cookies and variables. Everything needs to be done manually. There's no automation."
"You really need a technical team in order to really utilize the product."
"The UI has room for improvement."
"The UI of the solution needs to be better. The UI takes up a lot of our bandwidth."
"The tool should be made a bit more robust, and better support should be made available."
"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 UI could be better."
"The reporting section of the solution can be better."
"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."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"The solution is expensive."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"[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."
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.