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 like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional's stability at eight out of ten."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"The load testing, reporting, and scripting features are all valuable features."
"Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools."
"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."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"It's simple to set up."
"Lacks specific level monitoring."
"The solution is very costly. The cost is very high, especially considering a lot of other resources are available now and they are less expensive. For a small organization, it is very difficult to sustain the costs involved in having the solution or the related fees"
"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."
"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."
"I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
"There's a reporting part of the cloud that could be improved a little bit."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"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."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"The solution is expensive."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 76 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 Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio and SmartBear TestComplete.
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.