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."The most valuable feature for us is the available information on the forums and to be able to discuss and get answers from the people that are involved in using this tool."
"The solution offers a lot of plug-ins and a huge continuously developing community that is regularly offering new features and plug-ins."
"I appreciate JMeter's simplicity and power for performance testing."
"To me, what's most valuable in Apache JMeter is that it's a lightweight tool for application testing. It's the best load-testing tool for my company because Apache JMeter simulates your application during testing. Apache JMeter also creates threads with good server utilization. Apache JMeter allows you to focus on analyzing the situation, looking into measurements, response time, and client-server responses, which I find valuable."
"We like that Apache JMeter has different features and different plugins and that they are free of charge."
"The recording and playback functionality is helpful."
"I use all the tools, but one feature that stands out is JMeter's ability to test when services are sending a particular kind of request. We are using specific ports to send queries, and assess the performance based on the time it takes these queries to respond. You can use it with stuff other than the web performance."
"The biggest thing I liked about it is that there is a huge user base out there, and being shareware and being Apache, if I have any question on how to get something done, I get 18 different answers. Out of those, there would be at least a few good approaches for what I was trying to do. So, the support system out there is most valuable."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"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."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"The solution needs more metrics for reporting."
"Apache JMeter may have difficulty recognizing dynamic objects in some critical cases, which can lead to challenges in terms of object identification."
"In future releases, it would be helpful if there was an integration with ALM Octane."
"The user interface is a little bit tricky."
"Currently, the integration pipeline is implemented by using Jenkins or a similar tool platform. These are continuous integration tools. As far as I know, integration is done by using custom scripts. It would be good if the integration with a continuous integration pipeline, like Jenkins or Hudson, can be done out of the box without using a script."
"The UI of the solution needs to be better. The UI takes up a lot of our bandwidth."
"The interface could be made more user-friendly."
"We would like some reporting and analysis tools to be added to this solution."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"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 product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
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.