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

OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs OpenText UFT One 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:
 

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
OpenText customer service is praised for responsiveness, though experiences vary, with mixed satisfaction levels and reliance on partners for support.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
 

Room For Improvement

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
5.5
OpenText UFT One needs better object identification, browser compatibility, AI, integration, and interface, with concerns on cost and stability.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
 

Scalability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText UFT One offers scalability and flexibility, though users note speed and browser issues; licensing affects usage costs.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
OpenText UFT One is praised for robust automation but criticized for high costs and complex licensing options.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
 

Stability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
8.1
OpenText UFT One's stability is generally reliable but varies with system requirements and can be affected by version changes.
 

Valuable Features

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
8.5
OpenText UFT One excels in cross-platform compatibility, versatile scripting, and efficient automation for desktop, web, and mobile testing.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText LoadRunner Profess...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
80
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd), Load Testing Tools (3rd)
OpenText UFT One
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
93
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (4th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 12.3%, down 15.9% compared to last year.
OpenText UFT One, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 9.5% mindshare, down 9.8% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results
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. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 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
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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?
Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive. The virtual table server feature should be reintroduced. Some AI capabilities should be added. There should be an '...
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?
The solution should have additional features, but not much. It already has some sort of artificial intelligence that must be developed. It needs to be in trend. The solution needs better marketing,...
 

Also Known As

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

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.