We performed a comparison between OpenText Business Processing Testing and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"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 offers a wide range of testing."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"It's simple to set up."
"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."
"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
Earn 20 points
OpenText Business Processing Testing is ranked 37th in Functional Testing Tools while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText Business Processing Testing is rated 7.8, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText Business Processing Testing writes "Excellent usability, but the solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with their ALM tool". 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 Business Processing Testing is most compared with , whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.