SmartBear LoadComplete is a performance, stress and load testing tool for web and Rich Internet Applications, including ASP.NET, Ajax, Flash/Flex and Silverlight.
$287
one-time fee
OpenText UFT One
Score 7.8 out of 10
N/A
Unified Functional Testing (UFT, formerly known as HP UFT and before that QuickTest Professional or HP QTP) is a functional and performance testing tool acquired by Micro Focus from Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, now from OpenText.
N/A
Pricing
LoadComplete
OpenText UFT One
Editions & Modules
Subscription Starter
$239
per month 100 virtual users
On-demand Starter
$287
one-time fee 100 virtual users
Subscription Pro
$699
per month 1000 virtual users
On-demand Pro
$887
one-time fee 1000 virtual users
Subscription Premium
$899
per month 2500 virtual users
On-demand Premium
$1,139
one-time fee 2500 virtual users
Enterprise
Let's chat
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
LoadComplete
OpenText UFT One
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
On-demand plans contain a $4.99 monthly maintenance fee.
If you are testing an application and you don't have experience in performance testing, this tool will help you to test the load with some documentation help. It's very easy to use. and if you have complex scenarios to determine the coding and adjusting graphs, the LoadComplete will not be a helpful tool for you.
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.
We have been using LoadComplete in the Tech Department. I usually use LoadComplete to test the speed and loads of several applications we develop in-house.
Moreover, we have also used LoadComplete to create reports and at the same time report any issues that we notice during a certain load.
It is an affordable platform.
LoadComplete has a lot of good features which has made my life so much easier so there are many pros of this tool as well. It is quite easy to use and comes in very handy.
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.
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.
Usability is really good because being an enterprise tool that might be an easy option to convince users to try this tool. It has a lot of easy-to-use, cool options.
Customer support is good. If any concerns are raised, they are usually resolved soon, but when questioned about a feature LoadComplete does not support, it usually takes more time to resolve.
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.
We chose loadcomplete because we already use SmartBear software for other automation solutions. Porting over test cases is easy and a user can have a test up and running within minutes. I do wish SmartBear would have better support and I haven't used any other testing tool in a while to make a comparison.
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.
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.
