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."OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"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."
"This solution is SaaS based so we can utilize cloud technology, which is less time consuming and saves a lot of of money."
"The most valuable feature is that you can create an infrastructure on-demand and do performance testing with it."
"The solution can scale."
"The most valuable feature is having load generators in countries where we don’t have access to them."
"The reports are very relevant to the customers’ expectations."
"One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"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."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"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's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"The support team provides delayed responses."
"Its scripting features need improvement."
"Their documentation is not technical enough for us. We would like to have much deeper technical documentation so that we can self-serve without constantly having to go back to them and ask."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"The product price could be more affordable."
"Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"There are three modules in the system that are different products packaged into one, and they can sometimes be difficult to figure out, so they should be better integrated with each other."
"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."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"Technical support could be improved."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"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."
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.
