"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."
"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 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."
"The most valuable feature is that you can create an infrastructure on-demand and do performance testing with it."
"The most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center."
"The record and playback feature is the most valuable feature. It's all driven by the script, so it's a script-based tool where the background tracing starts. Java's background process does a lot of tracing. The process starts in the background. It sees what peaks of volumes that the process can handle. It's easy to use because it's script based, record, and playback. I"
"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."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"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."
"We are trying to put it into a complete CI/CD pipeline, but there are still some challenges when you try to run it through different protocols. The challenges are around how you can containerize applications. There are some limitations to some protocols, such as desktop. And when it comes to database testing, there are some things that we can't do through CI/CD."
"Reporting and analysis need improvement. Compared to the old school LoadRunner Windows application, the reporting and analysis are mediocre in LoadRunner Cloud."
"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."
"I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point."
"Improvements to the reporting would be good."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 6 reviews while Micro Focus UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 14 reviews. Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.0, while Micro Focus UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud writes "Enabled us to eliminate load generators, and automatically triggers and produces reports". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus UFT One writes "Testers have been able to free up their time: instead of doing mundane, repetitive tasks, they shift them off to automation". Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter, Apache JMeter and Tricentis Flood, whereas Micro Focus UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Micro Focus UFT Developer, SmartBear TestComplete, Selenium HQ and Katalon Studio.
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.
