OpenText Functional Testing and Selenium HQ are two prominent players in the automated testing sector. OpenText Functional Testing offers an impressive feature array, but Selenium HQ's open-source nature provides a cost-effective and versatile alternative, emerging as the preferable choice in various aspects.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing provides sophisticated features such as Record and Replay, Object Repository Technology, and AI integration. It supports extensive protocols and is suitable for large-scale enterprise applications with its advanced integration capabilities. Selenium HQ, however, excels in cross-browser support and multi-language compatibility, making it particularly appealing to developers familiar with programming languages, and allows automation across various platforms without licensing fees.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could benefit from improved browser compatibility and lower costs, as its licensing can be a barrier. It also faces challenges in programming language flexibility. On the other hand, Selenium HQ needs enhancements in handling dynamic web elements and better desktop and mobile applications support. It could also improve its reporting features and reduce the technical expertise required.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing typically requires on-premises deployment, which can complicate implementation compared to Selenium HQ's more flexible deployment options, including public and hybrid clouds. OpenText's customer service can suffer from variable responsiveness, while Selenium HQ relies on community support due to its open-source model.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing involves high licensing costs, making it more suitable for large enterprises needing extensive automation. It promises significant ROI by reducing manual testing efforts and enhancing test coverage. Selenium HQ, being open-source, provides excellent cost efficiency, making it ideal for projects with limited budgets and offering a low financial barrier to entry.
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.
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.
The marketplace community and forums are what we browse and look after, and we have found solutions whenever we tried to find anything.
I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.
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.
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
Selenium HQ is a scalable solution; it has been in production for the last two years, but I have been working on it for the last six years, so it is definitely scalable.
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.
An automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
I don't know if we have that capability to provide different data sources such as SQL Server, CSV, or maybe some other databases, so that kind of capability would be great.
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.
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.
New features in Selenium HQ make object identification easier without reliance on XPath and CSS.
When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Functional Testing | 7.2% |
| Selenium HQ | 4.2% |
| Other | 88.6% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 20 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 73 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 41 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 33 |
| Large Enterprise | 52 |
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.
Selenium HQ, an open-source testing framework, is recognized for its ability to automate web testing across diverse environments. Its versatility in script customization and cross-browser support makes it a trusted tool for efficient automation testing.
Selenium HQ offers significant support for multiple browsers and programming languages, providing integration with CI tools and compatibility with frameworks like TestNG and JUnit. Users leverage its open-source nature for cost-effective testing and appreciate its scalability and flexibility for parallel execution. A vibrant community contributes to its continuous development. However, improvements are desired in performance-testing, parallel execution efficiency, and enhanced mobile device support. Users find it complex for those without development skills, with needs for better iOS automation and expanded reporting features.
What are the key features of Selenium HQ?Selenium HQ is widely adopted across industries for its comprehensive automation capabilities. Enterprises often employ it for UI and regression testing in web and mobile applications, integrating seamlessly with CI tools for a streamlined workflow. Its ability to automate API calls further enhances its utility across industry sectors.
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.
