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."It offers easy integration with third-party tools like Dynatrace, Splunk, etc."
"With LoadRunner Enterprise, doing various types of performance testing, load testing, and automation testing has been very helpful for some of the teams."
"The solution supports a number of protocols."
"The initial setup was straightforward. I was able to download everything myself without any IT support."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"For me, the test coverage and the performance and load testing aspects are valuable."
"The host performance testing of any application using a host/controller is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the Vuser protocols."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"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's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."
"I think better support for cloud-based load generators would help. For example, integrate with Amazon AWS so you can quickly spin up a load generator in the cloud, use it, spin it down."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience."
"We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application."
"The product's scalability must be improved."
"It's not that popular on the cloud."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"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."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"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 area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
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.
