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."LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure."
"Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise supports a lot of technologies. The existing performance testing that this tool is capable of is good. The protocols that are available are widely varied when compared to other performance testing tools."
"It is also good for reporting purposes, which would be most familiar for QC and UFT users."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"You can test a huge variety of applications, not just web-based systems, but SAP, Oracle, web services, pretty much anything out in the market place, but it's mobile-based testing."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"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."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"They need to focus on minimizing the cost."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise doesn't support some mainframe protocols. We had to build scripts to access the interface."
"Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience."
"While the stability is generally good, there are a few strange issues that crop up unexpectedly which affect consistent use of the product."
"The solution is expensive."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"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."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
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 BlazeMeter, 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.
