We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter 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."The most valuable feature of this solution is being able to launch many requests and scheduling simulating human interactions with the application."
"It is very quick and user-friendly."
"JMeter lets us generate virtual users and T-load, per our requirements. It's easy to configure and adjusting the virtual users according to the DPS we want to achieve."
"The scripting ability is most valuable. It is easy to use. There is a UI, and you can go in there and figure those things out. After you've got a good set of tests, you basically have a scripted document that you can grab and execute in a pipeline. It is pretty quick to set up, and you can scale it and version control it."
"The features that I appreciate are quite basic. It is easy to ramp up the threads and start calling the application. A lot of connectors can already be found within Apache JMeter, but we are not using the entire set because the integration between the customers and platform is based on HTTP. We are just going to produce lots of HTTP sequences."
"I use all the tools, but one feature that stands out is JMeter's ability to test when services are sending a particular kind of request. We are using specific ports to send queries, and assess the performance based on the time it takes these queries to respond. You can use it with stuff other than the web performance."
"We find the ease of use and the reports and graphs available valuable."
"The solution is scalable."
"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 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."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"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."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"I need to consider it further because as features increase, it might become more complicated, and my goal has always been simplicity. Currently, I have to focus on other tasks, and I'm handling multiple responsibilities, so I can't juggle everything at once. However, if you ask me, I believe EJB covers most functionalities that are crucial. One improvement I'd suggest is adding a graphical aspect to the Gateway, making it a bit more colorful. Unlike JMeter, which lacks color, having a bit of color in the graphical aspects would be beneficial. Overall, for the essential features, EJB should work fine."
"Until now, JMeter is not supporting most of the protocols."
"The solution could use some sort of educational features to offer tips and hints to help users navigate it better. They should improve the manuals and help files."
"Apache JMeter's UI can be made more colorful."
"Report generation needs to be improved. It is quite difficult to get to."
"They can improve it a little bit in terms of distribution load testing. We struggled with it during the distribution. In terms of reporting, runtime monitoring is not currently included, and it should be included. They can also improve it on the reporting side in terms of the comparison of the reports. They can also focus more on integration with CI/CD. Currently, people are using their own customized tools. It would be nice if Apache can provide some standard tools and procedures for integration with CI/CD tools like DPR. There are some tools, but it would be nice if official standard tools and procedures are available."
"Self-healing and page rendering for the end-users are not available in Apache JMeter."
"We would like some reporting and analysis tools to be added to this solution."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
"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."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked 6th in Mobile App Testing Tools with 16 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Digital Lab writes "Robust solution for application lifecycle management with numerous valuable features". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and OpenText LoadRunner Professional, whereas OpenText UFT Digital Lab is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Appium, Perfecto, AWS Device Farm and Sauce Labs. See our Apache JMeter 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.
