We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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 most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center."
"One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols."
"Both the professional and cloud versions of Micro Focus LoadRunner use the same scripting or programming to execute performance modeling operations. This feature allows users to use various programming languages such as Java, C, or C++, which can run within either of the two environments. This flexibility in the programming language is a strong point of the software."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"The beauty of LoadRunner Cloud is that we can use the load generator that is hosted by us on-premises, and we also have the option to use their hosted load generator. If it is a public-hosted application, we can also use their public-hosted load generator, but in our case, all our applications are hosted in our data center, so we are using the on-premise load generator. We have the option to deploy those load generators as we want."
"It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users."
"Keeping up with DevOps, thus the best feature of StormRunner is that we don't have to build and maintain infrastructure anymore."
"The TruClient feature is the most valuable for us. An application with testing can only be scripted using TruClient, so it's part web-based, but it also has its own protocol combined with HTTP and HTML. So many other tools do not recognize this specific proprietary protocol. Using TruClient, we can still create scripts that cover everything that we need to cover."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"Reporting and analysis need improvement. Compared to the old school LoadRunner Windows application, the reporting and analysis are mediocre in LoadRunner Cloud."
"The product must provide agents to monitor servers."
"The support team provides delayed responses."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"Improvements to the reporting would be good."
"We are trying to put it into a complete CI/CD pipeline, but there are still some challenges when you try to run it through different protocols. The challenges are around how you can containerize applications. There are some limitations to some protocols, such as desktop. And when it comes to database testing, there are some things that we can't do through CI/CD."
"I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point."
"CI/CD integration could be a little bit better. When there's a test and if you see that there are high response times in the test itself, it would be great to be able to send an alert. It would give a heads-up to the architect community or ops community."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"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."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Supports multiple protocols and helps to ensure that our applications are stable at any given point". 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 Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and Apica, 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.
