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 product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"The reports are very relevant to the customers’ expectations."
"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."
"The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to configure browser settings for different operating systems and on different versions without the need to install every single version on each machine and to manage them."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"It's simple to set up."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved."
"Their documentation is not technical enough for us. We would like to have much deeper technical documentation so that we can self-serve without constantly having to go back to them and ask."
"The support team provides delayed responses."
"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."
"There are three modules in the system that are different products packaged into one, and they can sometimes be difficult to figure out, so they should be better integrated with each other."
"We did have some challenges with the initial implementation."
"Improvements to the reporting would be good."
"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."
"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."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"Technical support could be improved."
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 "Enterprise modeling, server maintenance, and competitive pricing". 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, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis NeoLoad, BlazeMeter and Oracle Application Testing Suite, 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.