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."I am impressed with the tool's correlation function."
"It has features for recording. The best feature with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is that there is very little bottleneck or overhead issues. With LoadRunner, you can spawn 2000 contributions for one machine."
"I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good."
"Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
"There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"Graph monitoring is a valuable feature."
"A very comprehensive tool that is good for performance testing."
"LoadRunner is a very systematic tool for anyone to use. Even someone who is actually a first time user of LoadRunner can actually get a lot of benefit out of the tool."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"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 product is pretty heavy and should be more lightweight."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"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."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 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 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.
