We performed a comparison between OpenText Business Processing Testing and Testim based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The product is easy to use."
"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."
"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
Earn 20 points
OpenText Business Processing Testing is ranked 37th in Functional Testing Tools while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. OpenText Business Processing Testing is rated 7.8, while Testim is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of OpenText Business Processing Testing writes "Excellent usability, but the solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with their ALM tool". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". OpenText Business Processing Testing is most compared with , whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Testsigma and Applitools.
See our list of best Functional 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.
