Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering enhances reliability, reduces downtime, prevents crashes, and offers a 200% ROI by identifying system issues early.
Sentiment score
6.8
OpenText Functional Testing boosts ROI by enhancing efficiency with AI, reducing manual efforts, and accelerating test execution time.
I have seen an ROI from this tool, as it provides enormous value.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering's support quality varies, with experiences ranging from excellent service to slow responses and unhelpful documentation.
Sentiment score
6.1
OpenText Functional Testing's customer service is praised for responsiveness, but support experiences vary in wait times and issue resolution.
The customer service and technical support for OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is reasonable, not impressive, but provides adequate assistance.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
I would rate the support for this product a seven on a scale of one to ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
LoadRunner Enterprise scales well and flexibly, but faces challenges with memory use and license costs impacting adoption.
Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText Functional Testing is scalable with proper license management and infrastructure, excelling in test automation scalability and integration.
I rate the scalability of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) as ten when using a scale from one to ten, with one being low.
Running them in parallel allows you to consume multiple runtime licenses and just execute the tests that don't have conflicting priorities and get through a lot of volume much quicker.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
LoadRunner Enterprise is generally stable but may face occasional issues due to infrastructure, version upgrades, and maintenance needs.
Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText Functional Testing performs well on suitable hardware, but stability varies with new features and requires strategic implementation.
However, it remains quite stable.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise struggles with UI, integration, reporting, support, and pricing, leading users to consider alternatives.
OpenText Functional Testing is criticized for high memory usage, slow performance, poor compatibility, and requires technical skills and costly investment.
It could be much better, especially with modern AI capabilities.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is costly but offers value, requiring careful planning to optimize virtual user license expenses.
Despite its high cost and complex pricing, OpenText Functional Testing is valued for support and features, offering flexible licenses.
It is neither cheap nor expensive.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
 

Valuable Features

LoadRunner Enterprise enhances testing efficiency with scalability, advanced reporting, integration, and real-time analysis, benefiting global application performance management.
OpenText Functional Testing enhances automation efficiency with AI tools, platform compatibility, and support for diverse technologies.
The best features of this solution are easy scripting and broad platform support.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The ease of being able to create scripts using the AI tools are the differentiating factors.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Enterprise Perform...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
84
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (5th), Load Testing Tools (5th)
OpenText Functional Testing
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 5.9%, down 6.1% compared to last year.
OpenText Functional Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 8.4% mindshare, down 9.7% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise)5.9%
Apache JMeter14.8%
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)13.1%
Other66.19999999999999%
Performance Testing Tools
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.4%
Tricentis Tosca17.6%
BrowserStack9.5%
Other64.5%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VictorHorescu - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to test almost every tool in the companies I enter and performs well in a distributed environment
It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems. In real time, when they ask for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users, I have to provision a lot of virtual machines to define this load. Then there are situations with certain platforms, especially document management platforms, where the technology is so weird that normal LoadRunner protocols cannot detect it. So, in that case, I have to use that special TruClient protocol. I have to use the TruClient protocol, which actually clicks on the object. Despite the SQL technology, I can still create a script and test for performance. So what I would appreciate a lot is if this protocol would require less resources on a normal virtual machine. I can use fewer concurrent users with TruClient protocols as opposed to almost one hundred with HTTP/HTML. As opposed to many more with HTTP/HTML from, let's say, JMeter. So, optimization at that level for resource consumption by OpenText would be much appreciated.
Badari Mallireddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development
I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
872,869 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Retailer
7%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise73
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise71
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration into a company, taking merely five minutes to set up. This ease of integration a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
The price of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise), including pricing, licensing, and setup cost, is reasonable. It is neither cheap nor expensive.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
The analytics and reporting features can be improved, though they are good enough. If you have expertise, you can manage with what is included. However, it could be much better, especially with mod...
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
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...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the public repository when using Object Spy and adding objects, as it currently stor...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: October 2025.
872,869 professionals have used our research since 2012.