We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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."There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"Very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors. It also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation. In addition, we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"Graph monitoring is a valuable feature."
"The solution is quite stable."
"A very comprehensive tool that is good for performance testing."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"The ability to do multithreading. That's available in any performance testing tool, but the number of protocols that this particular tool supports has been very good."
"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."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"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 entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"It's simple to set up."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"The solution is very costly. The cost is very high, especially considering a lot of other resources are available now and they are less expensive. For a small organization, it is very difficult to sustain the costs involved in having the solution or the related fees"
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
"Support for Microsoft Dynamics needs improvement."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
"Licensing costs could be reduced."
"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
"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."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 90 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". 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 Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and Akamai CloudTest, 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.
