We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"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."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"It is a good automation tool."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"The solution is free to use."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"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."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Oracle Application Testing Suite, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Ranorex Studio. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Selenium HQ 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.
