OpenText LoadRunner Cloud vs OpenText UFT One comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
OpenText Logo
4,653 views|2,784 comparisons
92% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
11,079 views|6,814 comparisons
87% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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.
To learn more, read our detailed Performance Testing Tools Report (Updated: May 2024).
771,170 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The most valuable feature is that you can create an infrastructure on-demand and do performance testing with it.""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.""Both the professional and cloud versions of Micro Focus LoadRunner use the same scripting or programming to execute performance modeling operations. This feature allows users to use various programming languages such as Java, C, or C++, which can run within either of the two environments. This flexibility in the programming language is a strong point of the software.""One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols.""The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI.""The product’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement.""The most valuable feature is the ability to configure browser settings for different operating systems and on different versions without the need to install every single version on each machine and to manage them.""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."

More OpenText LoadRunner Cloud Pros →

"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution.""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.""The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel.""The initial setup is relatively easy.""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.""With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files.""The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms.""It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."

More OpenText UFT One Pros →

Cons
"The product must provide agents to monitor servers.""The product price could be more affordable.""Improvements to the reporting would be good.""Sometimes, you are utilizing one of the low generators, then all of a sudden if you discontinue from one project, it actually deletes the entire low generator.""Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved.""Reporting and analysis need improvement. Compared to the old school LoadRunner Windows application, the reporting and analysis are mediocre in LoadRunner Cloud.""An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries.""One area of improvement in the software's support is the replaying of captured data within the development environment. It would be beneficial if the replay feature could accurately mimic what the actual application is doing for better analysis and testing."

More OpenText LoadRunner Cloud Cons →

"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.""It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this.""The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java.""Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected.""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.""One area for improvement is its occasional slowness.""Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation).""One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."

More OpenText UFT One Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The pricing is very reasonable and the licensing is straightforward."
  • "There is no monthly or yearly cost but rather, the fees are based on the amount of traffic that you use."
  • "We make use of virtual user hours. We buy time in the LoadRunner Cloud. It costs around $80,000."
  • "Pricing is dependent on what you're referring to. If you're talking about the cloud, it's likely competitive. However, if you're talking about the on-premise version, professional or enterprise licenses are required. Prices are on the high side. They are not cheap."
  • "The solution is expensive."
  • "It is expensive compared to other tools."
  • "LoadRunner always had expensive pricing. At my company, we used to evaluate LoadRunner, but we stuck with Silk Performer because its pricing was always better in the past. I do feel that I got a fair deal this time. Our value-added reseller and our sales guy worked hard to give us a fair deal. I feel that we got a fair deal. We did not go for the pay-as-you-go deal. I did an upfront package. I prefer that. I want to know what my costs are."
  • "The solution’s price is considerably high."
  • More OpenText LoadRunner Cloud Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
  • "The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
  • "It's an expensive solution."
  • "For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
  • "The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
  • "The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
  • "The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
  • "The price is one aspect that could be improved."
  • More OpenText UFT One Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    771,170 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:I absolutely recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud. In fact, I consider it to be one of the best performance testing tools I like it because it provides many benefits. Some of the ones I find to… more »
    Top Answer:One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols.
    Top Answer:The solution is a bit expensive. The pay-as-you-go model offered by LoadRunner Cloud is important to us, especially when considering the cost-effectiveness of performance testing.
    Top Answer: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… more »
    Top Answer:My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
    Top Answer:The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on… more »
    Ranking
    Views
    4,653
    Comparisons
    2,784
    Reviews
    14
    Average Words per Review
    602
    Rating
    8.6
    2nd
    Views
    11,079
    Comparisons
    6,814
    Reviews
    20
    Average Words per Review
    694
    Rating
    8.1
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, StormRunner Load, LoadRunner Cloud, and Micro Focus StormRunner Load
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    Learn More
    Overview
    Do your performance and load testing in the cloud. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud makes it easy to plan, run, and scale performance tests without the need to deploy and manage infrastructure.
    Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications. Read white paper
    Sample Customers
    Alfa Bank, N Brown Group, University of Copenhagen, McGraw-Hill, Cognizant
    Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm33%
    Educational Organization22%
    Retailer11%
    Government11%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm21%
    Computer Software Company14%
    Manufacturing Company10%
    Government8%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    Government6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business14%
    Midsize Enterprise19%
    Large Enterprise68%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise75%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise74%
    Buyer's Guide
    Performance Testing Tools
    May 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: May 2024.
    771,170 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Supports multiple protocols and helps to ensure that our applications are stable at any given point". 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 Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and Apica, 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.