We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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."Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to use and has flexibility that allows it to be used on a variety of applications."
"Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure."
"It allows you to work out how well you are doing project-wise because you see the number of scripts done, the number of tests run, and whether you have mapped all your requirements to it."
"The product is good, and the concept is good as well."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting, correlations, and parameterization. Debugging is also easy."
"It offers easy integration with third-party tools like Dynatrace, Splunk, etc."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"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 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."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"I think better or more integration with some of the monitoring tools that we're considering."
"Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"It is tough to maintain from the infrastructure side."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"I know there are integrations with continuous testing. It's got tie-ins to some of the newer tools to allow continuous testing. I'd love to see us not have to customize it, but for it to be out of the box."
"OpenText needs to improve in terms of support. With the same support plan but when the product was owned by HP, support was more responsive and better coordinated."
"The solution is expensive."
"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."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"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 want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"Technical support could be improved."
"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."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". 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 Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and BlazeMeter, 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.
