We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud and OpenText UFT Digital Lab based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is feature-rich. It supports most protocols, which is important because I am in charge of a team at the bank, and we do performance testing for all kinds of different applications. We have tons of them. We even do video streams."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"This solution is SaaS based so we can utilize cloud technology, which is less time consuming and saves a lot of of money."
"The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The beauty of LoadRunner Cloud is that we can use the load generator that is hosted by us on-premises, and we also have the option to use their hosted load generator. If it is a public-hosted application, we can also use their public-hosted load generator, but in our case, all our applications are hosted in our data center, so we are using the on-premise load generator. We have the option to deploy those load generators as we want."
"Keeping up with DevOps, thus the best feature of StormRunner is that we don't have to build and maintain infrastructure anymore."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"The product is easy to use."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
"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."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries."
"Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved."
"CI/CD integration could be a little bit better. When there's a test and if you see that there are high response times in the test itself, it would be great to be able to send an alert. It would give a heads-up to the architect community or ops community."
"The support team provides delayed responses."
"One area for improvement in LoadRunner Cloud, especially for agile models, is its limited support for functional testing alongside its robust non-functional testing capabilities."
"I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked 6th in Mobile App Testing Tools with 16 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is rated 7.4. 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 Digital Lab writes "Robust solution for application lifecycle management with numerous valuable features". OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and Apache JMeter, whereas OpenText UFT Digital Lab is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Appium, Perfecto, AWS Device Farm and Sauce Labs. See our OpenText LoadRunner Cloud vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab report.
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.