OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs OpenText UFT One comparison

"The solution does support a wide range of technologies and protocols. Plus, two features, network virtualization, and service virtualization, are really helpful. Apart from that, the way they have their billing scenarios, like the execution, is very good."

"With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."

"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 allows for quick comparison of monitoring and performance results, a feature I highly appreciate."

"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."

"Creating the script is very easy and user friendly."

"The tool is very easy to set up and get running."

"What I like most in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the comparison between two different exhibitions which gives value to my company. I also like that the solution is user-friendly, especially in terms of making specific changes. For example, in the past, you can't see the changes when you upload scripts into the Performance Center, but now, it has that visibility, so whenever you want, you can change the script in the Performance Center. I also like that Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the only tool you can utilize for all your needs, even for different protocols and scripting. The solution also has the latest features, for example, networkability, where it can, within the UI, follow the waterfall model. You can use the insights in the Performance Center of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise to address or test URLs that usually take up much time."

"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."

"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."

"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."

"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."

"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."

"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."

"The installation has not been straightforward, and we have had so many problems. We have had to re-install, try to install on a different machine, etc. We have not been able to launch the LRE server itself yet."

"LoadRunner Enterprise's reporting should be quicker, easier, and more flexible."

"When we have a new application, recording the application is a pretty tough task. We have tried multiple things. We do scripting or try to record with different settings and on different machines. We try to record multiple times, but we do not know why it is recording and why it is not recording. We do the same thing on different machines. It sometimes records, and at other times, it does not. That is one of the major concerns."

"I believe the data that demonstrates the automated correlations should be corrected."

"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."

"I think better or more integration with some of the monitoring tools that we're considering."

"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise needs to improve reporting."

"Currently, when we try open LRE we encounter cookie banner issues. However, I'm not sure if it is within the enterprise solution or with the vendors."

"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 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."

"We'd like it to have less scripting."

"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."

"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."

"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."

"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."

"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."

"This solution can be expensive."

"For Performance Center, you have to add additional load generators, and then you can do more. I think it is a matter of the price, in terms of how many machines you can buy."

"We are content with the pricing and find it to be reasonable in terms of value for money."

"It is a bit expensive when compared with other tools."

"It is a bit expensive, especially for smaller organizations, but over-all it can save you money."

"I give the cost a one out of ten."

"The price is okay. You're able to buy it, as opposed to paying for a full year."

"ROI is 200%."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"It's an expensive solution."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."