We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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 beneficial features of the solution are flexibility and versatility in their performance."
"I think the number one feature everybody likes is the capability to easily generate virtual users as well as the reporting."
"The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"We can measure metrics like hits per second and detect deviations or issues through graphs. We can filter out response times based on timings and identify spikes in the database or AWS reports."
"The user interface is fine."
"It allows you to work out how well you are doing project-wise because you see the number of scripts done, the number of tests run, and whether you have mapped all your requirements to it."
"This product is better oriented to large, enterprise-oriented organizations."
"The most valuable feature is the Vuser protocols."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"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 most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"The worst thing about it is it did not have zero footprint on your PC."
"Lacks the option of carrying out transaction comparisons."
"The support team needs to be more coordinated."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability."
"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"I believe the data that demonstrates the automated correlations should be corrected."
"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."
"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."
"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"The solution is expensive."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". 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 Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and BlazeMeter, 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.