OpenText Functional Testing and Qt Squish are competitors in the functional testing software domain. OpenText has the edge in feature set and deployment flexibility, but Qt Squish is more cost-effective, especially for businesses reliant on Qt framework technologies.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing supports automated GUI and API testing with broad compatibility across systems. It offers extensive integrations and allows for customization using VBScript and Excel integration. Conversely, Qt Squish excels in strong object recognition for Qt applications and supports scripting languages like Python and JavaScript. With compatibility across desktop, mobile, and web applications, it is particularly valuable for Qt framework users.
Room for Improvement: OpenText could enhance speed, browser compatibility, and support for .NET applications. Users also desire integration with modern scripting languages and better memory management. Qt Squish should improve object identification and scripting integration. Users also suggest better Jenkins integration and C/C++ support without Qt.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText's deployment spans on-premises and cloud environments, appealing to enterprises, though customer service quality varies. Qt Squish is praised for its straightforward on-premise deployment and reliable customer service from Froglogic.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText is expensive, yet its robust features justify the cost for many with significant ROI through automation gains. Qt Squish is also costly but offers a good return, especially for companies relying on Qt due to its specialized features and simple licensing model.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
For the part that has been automated in Qt, not everything is suitable for automation.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
Running them in parallel allows you to consume multiple runtime licenses and just execute the tests that don't have conflicting priorities and get through a lot of volume much quicker.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
With one license, just one user or one test scenario can be run at a time.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
If you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need the Qt version of Java.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
For the developer license, it is about $5200 a year.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
OpenText Functional Testing has an impressive ability to connect to mobile devices and its ability to test so many different types of software, whether it be mainframe, APIs, mobile, web, or desktop.
The best features of OpenText Functional Testing include descriptive programming, the ability to add objects in the repository, and its ease of use for UI compared to other tools.
For the parts that have been automated in Qt, not everything is suitable for automation.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Functional Testing | 8.4% |
| Qt Squish | 3.3% |
| Other | 88.3% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 20 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 71 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 10 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 2 |
| Large Enterprise | 9 |
OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.
OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.
What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.
Take the complexity out of testing graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and human-machine interfaces (HMIs) – even in the face of product evolution and safety-critical applications.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
