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."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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
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.