OpenText LoadRunner Cloud vs OpenText UFT One comparison

"The solution is easy to use."

"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."

"It's a fast product, so you don't have much trouble in terms of maintenance overhead. You don't want to just look into configuring load generators, look for upgrades, and end up having that take up a lot of your time. With this solution, you just log in and you start using it. This means that there is a huge benefit in terms of the overhead of maintaining the infrastructure and the maintenance effort."

"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."

"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 TruClient feature is the most valuable for us. An application with testing can only be scripted using TruClient, so it's part web-based, but it also has its own protocol combined with HTTP and HTML. So many other tools do not recognize this specific proprietary protocol. Using TruClient, we can still create scripts that cover everything that we need to cover."

"The most valuable feature is having load generators in countries where we don’t have access to them."

"It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users."

"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."

"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."

"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."

"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."

"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."

"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."

"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."

"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."

"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."

"Its scripting features need improvement."

"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."

"The product must provide agents to monitor servers."

"The support team provides delayed responses."

"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."

"An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries."

"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."

"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 tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."

"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."

"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."

"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."

"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."

"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."

"It's a very expensive solution"

"There is no monthly or yearly cost but rather, the fees are based on the amount of traffic that you use."

"LoadRunner always had expensive pricing. At my company, we used to evaluate LoadRunner, but we stuck with Silk Performer because its pricing was always better in the past. I do feel that I got a fair deal this time. Our value-added reseller and our sales guy worked hard to give us a fair deal. I feel that we got a fair deal. We did not go for the pay-as-you-go deal. I did an upfront package. I prefer that. I want to know what my costs are."

"The solution’s price is considerably high."

"It is expensive compared to other tools."

"We make use of virtual user hours. We buy time in the LoadRunner Cloud. It costs around $80,000."

"The solution is expensive."

"It is neither costly nor cheap. It is not too high and not too low. I know the price of other tools, and LoadRunner Cloud's price is in the medium range."

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."

"It's an expensive solution."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""