OpenText Functional Testing and Visual Studio Test Professional compete in the automated testing tools category. Each has a unique advantage depending on user requirements. Based on comparisons, OpenText provides strong versatility for diverse applications while Visual Studio Test Professional integrates seamlessly with the Microsoft ecosystem, enhancing development workflows.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing excels with robust automation frameworks suitable for desktop, mobile, and web testing. Its adaptability with built-in test frameworks and extensive platform support are key strengths. Visual Studio Test Professional is highly valued for its strong integration with Microsoft products, ease of use, and development tools like IntelliSense. It offers rich extension capabilities that leverage the Microsoft software ecosystem effectively.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could benefit from improved browser compatibility and a reduced memory footprint. The reliance on VBScript limits some users, and better integration with modern languages is needed. Visual Studio Test Professional can enhance integration with other tools and reinforce support for modern web technologies. Improvements in Git integration handling and resource consumption performance are noted by users.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing offers primarily on-premises deployment with noted comprehensive customer service, though some delays in support are reported. Visual Studio Test Professional presents diverse deployment options, including hybrid cloud support, backed by Microsoft's robust support network.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is perceived as expensive, impacting budget-constrained organizations, but provides significant ROI through its comprehensive feature set and technology support. Visual Studio Test Professional, while costly, is seen as offering good value by enhancing efficiencies within development environments closely aligned with Microsoft products, ultimately reducing manual efforts and increasing test coverage.
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.
Sometimes, the documentation is not readable, being too long or too detailed and not connected to my problem.
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.
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.
The product needs contextual help integrated within its interface.
Sometimes, the library version is not compatible with other libraries, causing errors in my application.
Additionally, in Visual Studio Code, we have an agent mode for GitHub Copilot, which is very helpful in testing or development phases, while Visual Studio's GitHub Copilot is a bit tricky and sometimes does not provide my desired output.
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.
The price is expensive.
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.
Visual Studio Test Professional is highly valuable because it provides extensive extensions and plugins that assist in measuring code quality.
We have a retrospective in our auto projects that we are using frequently to get lessons learned, what went well, and what is going wrong.
It supports cross-platform functionality.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Functional Testing | 7.7% |
| Visual Studio Test Professional | 1.1% |
| Other | 91.2% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 20 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 71 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 15 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 14 |
| Large Enterprise | 24 |
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.
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.
