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

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) 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
7.2
OpenText Functional Testing automates tasks, reducing testing time and costs, yielding significant long-term ROI and system compatibility.
Sentiment score
7.3
LoadRunner Professional offers strong ROI with reduced downtime, improved performance, and cost savings, justifying its initial investment.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.1
OpenText Functional Testing support is mixed, with responsive service but potential delays and escalations for technical issues.
Sentiment score
6.1
OpenText LoadRunner Professional support varies, with mixed feedback on responsiveness; community forums are often used for 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.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
If I need to rate support from one to ten, I would say it is a nine.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText Functional Testing scales well with planning, though browser support and licensing issues require attention for seamless integration.
Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText LoadRunner Professional provides scalable testing with high user counts, diverse protocols, but may require careful consideration of resource needs.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText Functional Testing is generally reliable, but occasional stability issues arise, influenced by machine specs and implementation methods.
Sentiment score
7.7
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering is highly stable and reliable, preferred over other tools despite minor bugs.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText Functional Testing needs enhancements in object identification, performance, cost, scripting support, mobile features, and open-source tool integration.
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is expensive and complex, needing simplification, better integration, automation, and enhanced reporting features.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
I find that AI functionality in OpenText LoadRunner Professional should be improved and more accessible.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText Functional Testing is costly but cost-effective due to robust capabilities and potential reductions in manual testing efforts.
OpenText LoadRunner Professional offers flexible scaling and support but may be costly compared to competitors due to additional user fees.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
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.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText Functional Testing provides extensive platform compatibility, strong object recognition, and robust automation frameworks enhancing diverse testing environments.
OpenText LoadRunner Professional offers robust scripting, analytics, diverse protocol support, and advanced scaling for efficient performance testing.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
The best features of OpenText Functional Testing include descriptive programming, the ability to add objects in the repository, and its ease of use for UI compared to other tools.
The most valuable feature of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is the analysis part that is really good, along with the support for multiple protocols.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Functional Testing
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)
OpenText Professional Perfo...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (4th), Load Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Functional Testing is designed for Functional Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 9.2%, down 9.4% compared to last year.
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional), on the other hand, focuses on Performance Testing Tools, holds 14.8% mindshare, up 12.4% since last year.
Functional Testing Tools
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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…
HelenSague - PeerSpot reviewer
A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications
I do not have any big challenges with LoadRunner. I only have some issues with load generators. It is a very common issue, and I hope it will be resolved in the latest release. For example, when we start to run our tests, users get the message that the load generator exceeded 80% of the CPU utilization. Even when the number of users is less, we get these messages. I am trying to resolve it, but it is not going. It is annoying. It is not a failure, but I hope that it will be resolved. IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
When designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I would like to improve OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on what we discussed in our last discussion, as those points remain similar and applicable. For future updates, I would like to see th...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: August 2025.
865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.