OpenText LoadRunner Cloud vs OpenText UFT One comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

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.
To learn more, read our detailed Performance Testing Tools Report (Updated: March 2024).
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center.""Keeping up with DevOps, thus the best feature of StormRunner is that we don't have to build and maintain infrastructure anymore.""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 TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI.""The initial setup was straightforward.""It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users.""The solution is easy to use.""This solution is SaaS based so we can utilize cloud technology, which is less time consuming and saves a lot of of money."

More OpenText LoadRunner Cloud Pros →

"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP).""Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test.""The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner.""I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well.""Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier.""My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.""It's simple to set up.""I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."

More OpenText UFT One Pros →

Cons
"Its scripting features need improvement.""Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved.""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.""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 would like for there to be better integration with other tools so that when you do load testing you can also do a security check.""The product must provide agents to monitor servers.""One area of improvement in the software's support is the replaying of captured data within the development environment. It would be beneficial if the replay feature could accurately mimic what the actual application is doing for better analysis and testing."

More OpenText LoadRunner Cloud Cons →

"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient.""Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected.""The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile.""One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement.""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.""They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user.""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."

More OpenText UFT One Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The pricing is very reasonable and the licensing is straightforward."
  • "There is no monthly or yearly cost but rather, the fees are based on the amount of traffic that you use."
  • "We make use of virtual user hours. We buy time in the LoadRunner Cloud. It costs around $80,000."
  • "Pricing is dependent on what you're referring to. If you're talking about the cloud, it's likely competitive. However, if you're talking about the on-premise version, professional or enterprise licenses are required. Prices are on the high side. They are not cheap."
  • "The solution is expensive."
  • "It is expensive compared to other tools."
  • "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."
  • More OpenText LoadRunner Cloud Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
  • "The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
  • "It's an expensive solution."
  • "For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
  • "The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
  • "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.""
  • "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."
  • "The price is one aspect that could be improved."
  • More OpenText UFT One Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:I absolutely recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud. In fact, I consider it to be one of the best performance testing tools I like it because it provides many benefits. Some of the ones I find to… more »
    Top Answer:One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols.
    Top Answer:The solution is a bit expensive. The pay-as-you-go model offered by LoadRunner Cloud is important to us, especially when considering the cost-effectiveness of performance testing.
    Top Answer: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… more »
    Top Answer:My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
    Top Answer:The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on… more »
    Ranking
    Views
    4,741
    Comparisons
    2,864
    Reviews
    14
    Average Words per Review
    602
    Rating
    8.6
    2nd
    Views
    11,757
    Comparisons
    7,234
    Reviews
    20
    Average Words per Review
    694
    Rating
    7.9
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, StormRunner Load, LoadRunner Cloud, and Micro Focus StormRunner Load
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    Learn More
    Overview
    Do your performance and load testing in the cloud. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud makes it easy to plan, run, and scale performance tests without the need to deploy and manage infrastructure.
    Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications. Read white paper
    Sample Customers
    Alfa Bank, N Brown Group, University of Copenhagen, McGraw-Hill, Cognizant
    Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm33%
    Educational Organization22%
    Retailer11%
    Government11%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm20%
    Computer Software Company14%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Government8%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business14%
    Midsize Enterprise19%
    Large Enterprise68%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise76%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise75%
    Buyer's Guide
    Performance Testing Tools
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: March 2024.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    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, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis NeoLoad, 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.