IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText UFT One comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. IBM is ranked #29, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.1. IBM holds a 0.6% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 10.1% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

IBM DevOps Test UI

Read 8 IBM DevOps Test UI reviews

638 Views
355 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

Read 96 OpenText UFT One reviews

7,140 Views
4,477 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

IBM DevOps Test UI

OpenText UFT One

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT One and IBM DevOps Test UI are competing in the test automation sector. OpenText UFT One seems to have the upper hand due to its wide compatibility across platforms and seamless integration with application lifecycle management tools.

Features: OpenText UFT One offers extensive environment support, advanced automation frameworks, and a comprehensive object repository, making it versatile for web, mobile, and desktop applications. IBM DevOps Test UI excels with its API integration and compatibility within IBM's ecosystem, supported by Eclipse IDE integration and effective Java environment support.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One could enhance its browser support for non-Windows platforms, improve execution speed, and refine its IDE capabilities for better file handling and debugging. IBM DevOps Test UI should focus on reducing load times, improving its object matching framework, and expanding browser compatibility to include Linux.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One can be deployed both on-premises and in the cloud, providing flexibility, though its customer service quality varies. IBM DevOps Test UI is mainly on-premises, benefiting existing infrastructure integration, and generally receives positive feedback for its support, which relies on specific service agreements.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One is priced higher due to its wide feature set, offering significant ROI by reducing manual testing and increasing coverage. IBM DevOps Test UI is also priced at a premium but often considered more affordable than its market competitors, providing ROI through productivity improvements in Java-centric setups and strong IBM tool integrations.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText UFT One Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText UFT One

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 849,686 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

IBM DevOps Test UI

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

29th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

14th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText UFT One

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

2nd

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 0.6%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 10.1%, up from 9.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Hellen Zhang

Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada

Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support

The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to how it works with the browser and the startup takes some time. Adjusting those changes to speed up the load time will improve the solution.

Read full review

Don Ingerson

QA Automation Engineer at Global Fortune 500 Company

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."

"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."

"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."

"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."

"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."

"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."

"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."

"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."

"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."

"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."

"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."

"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."

More OpenText UFT One pros

Cons

"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."

"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."

"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."

"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."

"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."

"They should include AI-based testing features."

"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."

"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."

"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."

"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."

"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."

"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."

More OpenText UFT One cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."

"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"The tool's price is high."

"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"The price is reasonable."

More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

29%

Financial Services Firm

17%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Insurance Company

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...

See all answers

Comparisons

Selenium HQ vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 38% of the time

HCL OneTest vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 21% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 19% of the time

More IBM DevOps Test UI Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 12% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

April 2025

Download IBM DevOps Test UI product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

April 2025

Download OpenText UFT One product report

Also Known As

IBM Rational Functional Tester

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

Overview

IBM DevOps Test UI, also known as Rational Functional Tester, is a software tool designed for automated functional and regression testing of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) and data-driven testing. It automates the testing process to ensure application functionalities work as intended and identifies any issues caused by new code changes. The tool is tailored for GUI testing, allowing for easy recording and playback of test cases that interact with UI elements like buttons and menus. It supports data-driven testing, enabling comprehensive tests across various data sets. Additionally, it offers visual editing features with screenshot representations for easy test creation and ScriptAssure technology to maintain test scripts even if the UI changes.

IBM

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

OpenText

Sample Customers

Edumate

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText UFT One

April 2025

Free Report: IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText UFT One

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText UFT One report.

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.