Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.4
Users find OpenText Enterprise Performance invaluable for 200% ROI through enhanced reliability, bottleneck prevention, and significant cost savings.
Sentiment score
7.5
OpenText Functional Testing boosts ROI by enhancing productivity with AI automation, supporting systems, and achieving high returns quickly.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.3
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise's customer service is responsive and supportive, with mixed technical support experiences and noted improvements.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText Functional Testing support is mixed, with some users satisfied and others citing slow responses and unhelpfulness, impacting satisfaction.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise excels in scalability for performance testing, though licensing costs challenge larger user loads.
Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText Functional Testing is scalable, adaptable, integrates well, and requires careful cost and license management for large teams.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is praised for its stability and reliability, despite occasional infrastructure-related challenges and necessary maintenance.
Sentiment score
6.5
OpenText Functional Testing stability varies; it depends on system configuration, with issues arising from resource limitations and updates.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise needs improvements in scheduling, integration, interface, cloud support, reporting, browser compatibility, and technical support.
OpenText Functional Testing requires enhancements in performance, usability, integration, language support, pricing, and user interface to improve adoption.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is often seen as pricey, with complexity in licensing and cost-saving options for users.
OpenText Functional Testing is costly but valued for robust features and ALM compatibility, needing experienced users for maximum ROI.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise excels in performance testing with user-friendly interface, robust scalability, and integration, offering high return on investment.
OpenText Functional Testing provides versatile platform compatibility, automation features, and seamless integration enhancing efficient test automation and maintenance.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Enterprise Perform...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
83
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (5th), Load Testing Tools (5th)
OpenText Functional Testing
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
96
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 5.8%, down 6.5% compared to last year.
OpenText Functional Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 9.4% mindshare, down 9.5% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VictorHorescu - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to test almost every tool in the companies I enter and performs well in a distributed environment
It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems. In real time, when they ask for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users, I have to provision a lot of virtual machines to define this load. Then there are situations with certain platforms, especially document management platforms, where the technology is so weird that normal LoadRunner protocols cannot detect it. So, in that case, I have to use that special TruClient protocol. I have to use the TruClient protocol, which actually clicks on the object. Despite the SQL technology, I can still create a script and test for performance. So what I would appreciate a lot is if this protocol would require less resources on a normal virtual machine. I can use fewer concurrent users with TruClient protocols as opposed to almost one hundred with HTTP/HTML. As opposed to many more with HTTP/HTML from, let's say, JMeter. So, optimization at that level for resource consumption by OpenText would be much appreciated.
Badari Mallireddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development
I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration into a company, taking merely five minutes to set up. This ease of integration a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
In 2019, I was dealing with the costs of LoadRunner. While I don't remember the exact figures, JMeter being free and RPT being cheaper makes them attractive. The high cost of LoadRunner, in contras...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
While I don't see any issues with LoadRunner's functionality, the cost of the tool is a major factor. Many of my customers have had to switch to different tools due to the cost of LoadRunner, despi...
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: July 2025.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.