BrowserStack vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. OpenText UFT One

If you need immediate testing (for example, from Azure pipelines agents), use BrowserStack instead of LambdaTest (which makes you wait in a "pool" until the device/platform combo you are querying is accessible). If you don't need your tests to be immediate and prefer a wider range of devices, then use Lambdatest.

Micro Focus LoadRunner and its suite of tools, specifically VuGen works wonderfully for us for all web, http/https and web service calls. We've been able to build tests for near any scenario we need with relative ease. As long as we have crafted up requirements for our scenarios / scripts to managed scope, we've had high success working with scripting and data driving. Our main tests are web service calls - typically chained together to form a full scenario with transactions measuring the journey or a similar (measure along the way) journey through a browser. For web services we will use VuGen and browser we've shifted to Tru Client I have had little-to-no experience scripting against a thick client where a ui-driven test would be required. I know its possible but quite costly due to the need to run the actual desktop client to drive tests. We've been fortunate enough to leverage http calls to represent client traffic.

Incentivized

UFT is well suited if the price is not an issue, and if the requirement is about testing different technologies. If the application is based on Legacy platforms like Siebel or Mainframe, UFT fares quite well. For low cost web-based projects, there are other cheap and open source tools available. If it is about API testing or Mobile Testing, it is better to use other tools like TOSCA.

Incentivized

• Reliable cross-browser, cross-device testing
• integration with JIRA to add screenshots directly to bugs etc
• Live mobile device testing for an extra layer of confidence
• Customer support has been very consistent and reliable
• User interface is incredibly simple to use and easy to train new users on

Incentivized

• It can simulate multiple users at the same time and help understand the performance.
• It can generate excellent reports and give insights into application performance.
• It is a fast tool and does not take time to perform its functions.

Incentivized

• The simple front end will allow novice users to easily grasp the basics of automation and give them confidence to try things for themselves.
• UFT can scale up and run across multiple machines from a single controller, such as ALM, enabling hundreds of tests to be executed overnight.
• There is an active support community out there, both official HPE based and independent users. This means if you do encounter a problem there is always someone out there to help you.
• The later versions have many add-ins to plug in to other tools within the QA world.
• Expert users are able to utilise the many native functions and also build their own to get the most out of the tool and impress people as they walk past and see the magic happening on the screen.
• UFT also has LeanFT bundled with it, allowing automated testing at the api level - if you can convince the developers to let you in there.

Incentivized

• The parallel execution is limited and is still in beta state. Once it starts to work properly, it will be more helpful
• The paid subscription can be a bit of an issue for some individuals or organizations as the charges are a bit too much
• Some of the devices do not open or load properly and are not available to test at times

Incentivized

• HP LoadRunner with new patches and releases sometimes makes no longer support older version of various protocols like Citrix, which makes the task time-consuming when using older versions of LoadRunner for some of the cases. So it should support older version as well while upgrading.
• Configuring HP LoadRunner over the firewall involves lots of configuration and may be troublesome. So, there should be a script (power shell script for Windows or shell script for Linux users) to make it easy to use and with less pain.
• I would like to see the RunTime Viewer of Vugen in HPLoadRunner based on the browser I selected in the run-time configuration to make it feel more realistic as a real user.
• Licensing cost is very high when we need to perform a test on application for a specific group of users.

Incentivized

• Its licensing cost is very high making it a very expensive tool. due to this many organisations are exploring options of license free tools like Selenium for automation. Though learning curve is large in case of Selenium but it is very cost effective & you an get lot of support online for Selenium.
• Though the scripting time is less since its easy to create automation scripts, the execution time is relatively higher as it takes the lot of CPU & RAM.
• Though UFT is quite stable but during long execution cycles we do get frequent browser crashing issues.
• In terms of costing TestComplete is also one option which is not free but comes with modular pricing. You can buy what you need, when you need.

Incentivized

It's almost the 3rd year for us and it's renewal time for us. So yes, we are already discussing how many licenses we need to increase as users are increasing internally. So it's 100% sure that we are already planning renewal this year as well BrowserStack with live and app automate.

Incentivized

So many options that it can be a little overwhelming, but the core functions are easy to find and use and it's usually not too hard to figure things out for the more complex tasks. Very easy to boot up a device and a specific browser from the dashboard to begin a manual website test.

Incentivized

The ui is clean but there are lots of setting snd options which one must be fully aware so it will aid him/her during scripting

Incentivized

I rated BrowserStack's availability a 10 because it is consistently reliable, with minimal to no downtime or unplanned outages. The platform is accessible whenever needed, ensuring uninterrupted testing. Its robust infrastructure and proactive monitoring ensure a seamless experience, allowing us to meet deadlines without delays caused by availability issues and all

The tests are fast considering the fact that they're Appium tests. I've seen tests reliably pass or fail when they're supposed to, with next to zero issues on the BrowserStack side of things. Tests launch only seconds after I kick off them off from my CLI.

Incentivized

I've not had much direct interaction with the BrowserStack support team. The help and community are great and we've not run into any issue that has really required us to reach out. I guess having a stable and easy to use system means you may never need to contact support.

Incentivized

Customer service is not that great. It's difficult to get hold of someone if an issue is supposed to be addressed on an urgent basis. No online chat service readily available.

Incentivized

HPE are quick to reply and it's possible to get through to the actual developers shuold the case warrent it. Their online system allows updates and tracking of all incedents raised.

Incentivized

Yes, it was online training on meet, and trainer looks like skilled and technical strong, he has covered end to end all the features and he has answers all the queries. because of this trainings we are able to implement it by our own in the organization, thank you for support and training.

Incentivized

It was a quick training from the support of browserstack, it was nice and easy to understand, thanks again for the support given by the team. and regularly I used to receive mails for training from support for any new feature they launch, I was able to spread same training to all my team and dev.

Incentivized

I rated the implementation satisfaction an 8 because while it went smoothly overall, there were some challenges during the initial learning phase and integration with existing tools. Key insights include the importance of providing sufficient training upfront and ensuring seamless integration with other systems to minimize disruptions and improve adoption speed.

BrowserStack products has been found better for low code automations and visual regression techniques. We have been struggling to maintain the API endpoint sanity tests and writing a lot of code for them while releasing the builds, while we chose BrowserStack accessibility solutions, we found it a way easier than we thought and worked it up.

Incentivized

HP performance center stacks up very well for front end applications. Need more improvements for API performance testing.

Incentivized

1. It works solid for automate SAP and S/4 Hana applications and Fiori too. 2. Teams are well versed about UFT One 3. Able to handle maintained execution results 4. Publish Automation execution results in well manner to the leadership team/stake holders 5. More help content available 6. Able to understand non technical resources about normal view.

Incentivized

No Vendors were involved, directly dealt with Browserstack

Incentivized

I may not be the best person to answer this as I am only using it for 1 department and at 1 site but will still try my best As far as Scalability for Devices for Mobile Automation is concerned, it gets a Solid 10, as the users can run cases on upto 10 device parallel and also have the best choices of devices to choose

Incentivized

Not used

Incentivized

• It reduced the cost of buying multiple devices as we have multiple devices access in it
• Easily accessible from anywhere due to it cloud availability
• Introducing this to our client also helped us in building trust as well as winning their confidence during deliverables

Incentivized

• The scripts created with traditional web/http protocol are not robust thus re-scripting is required after most every code drop. Troubleshooting and fixing the issue takes more time therefore in most cases we do re-scripting to keep it simple and save time.
• In ideal world you would rather spend more time doing testing than scripting in that case mostly you could use an Ajax TruClient protocol. This type of script will only fail when an object in the application is removed or changed completely. This way of scripting will save you more time and helps you maintain the scripts with less re-work effort on a release basis. On the long run you will have a better ROI when you use Ajax TruClient protocol for scripting.

Incentivized

• Reduces the total workload of keeping the team to test older (regression) functionality. QA testers can concentrate on ad-hoc and exploratory testing, saving time and effort across the entire project.
• Has built a better infrastructure for the client applications on which we can rely on for stability and providing regression results for any new features being developed.
• Led the applications a step closer to implementing agile practices and DevOps across the entire organization. Thus, providing a better turnaround time of new features to the customers and less maintenance headaches for the BAU team to address.

Incentivized