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."The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"The capabilities and flexibility of the Controller, the ability to monitor the systems under test, and the comprehensive results Analysis which saves a great deal of time."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward."
"Graph monitoring is a valuable feature."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"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."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional can improve the implementation of digital areas, such as digital testing, UI and native application, and native mobile applications."
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
"The technical support of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. I had an issue with the licensing and their response time is slow. They can improve on this in the future."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"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."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 76 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 Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio and SmartBear TestComplete.
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.