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’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement."
"The fact that the solution supports multiple protocols such as open source, VuGen, TruWeb, TruClient, and SAP is very important because these protocols help us to concentrate on what is really needed to produce performance tests. If something is not supported, you have to use other tools or find other ways of assimilating loads."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"The usability and ability to integrate with other solutions is quite good. When I use it in on Azure, then Red Hat is the most likely solution I use. When I use AWS, then I tend to use Lambda functions. In either case, it works well and you can use it either way."
"The most valuable feature is having load generators in countries where we don’t have access to them."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The solution can scale."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"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."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"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 product must provide agents to monitor servers."
"Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved."
"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."
"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."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"We did have some challenges with the initial implementation."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"Technical support could be improved."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
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, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, 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.
