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 is mostly user-friendly and usable."
"The product is good, and the concept is good as well."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature is the Vuser protocols."
"The solution does support a wide range of technologies and protocols. Plus, two features, network virtualization, and service virtualization, are really helpful. Apart from that, the way they have their billing scenarios, like the execution, is very good."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is recording and replaying, and the fact that there are multiple options available to do this."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"IP Spoofing can be done using Performance Center."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"It's simple to set up."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
"The debugging feature needs to include graphs."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise needs to add more features for Citrix performance-based applications testing. This was one of the challenges we observed. Additionally, we experienced some APIs challenges."
"I have seen some users report some issues, but I have personally not had any issues."
"It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems."
"I believe the data that demonstrates the automated correlations should be corrected."
"I think better or more integration with some of the monitoring tools that we're considering."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"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."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"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."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
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 Eggplant Performance, 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.
