OpenText Functional Testing and Qt Squish are two competing software testing solutions. Each offers distinct advantages, with OpenText excelling in integration and compatibility while Qt Squish stands out for GUI testing flexibility.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing supports a wide variety of technologies, including Oracle, SAP, and multiple browsers, making it ideal for cross-platform testing. Its scripting capabilities support complex testing frameworks. Moreover, its extensive integration options are beneficial for diverse software environments. Qt Squish is notable for its GUI testing, particularly for Qt applications, and offers an efficient scripting environment supporting multiple programming languages. Its integration with CI systems like TeamCity and object identification tools are also highlights.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing often faces criticism for its performance issues related to memory consumption and execution speed. Users frequently request enhancements in browser compatibility and a more user-friendly IDE. Qt Squish could improve in object identification and simplifying the tool for non-technical users. There are also opportunities to enhance features like recording and reporting in the IDE.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText offers both on-premises and cloud deployment options, providing flexibility, though customer service reviews are mixed and often depend on the level of technical support available. Qt Squish is primarily on-premises, known for its ease of deployment and responsive support, earning positive feedback for user-friendliness and support quality.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing has high licensing costs but provides options like seat and concurrent licenses, which can be justified by its comprehensive feature set and integration capabilities. Users report high ROI through reduced testing time and increased automation. Qt Squish also has significant upfront costs but offers a simpler licensing model, advantageous for smaller teams focused on Qt GUI testing. Both solutions have strong ROI potential by minimizing manual testing efforts and boosting productivity.
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.
For the part that has been automated in Qt, not everything is suitable for automation.
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.
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.
With one license, just one user or one test scenario can be run at a time.
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.
If you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need the Qt version of Java.
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.
For the developer license, it is about $5200 a year.
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.
For the parts that have been automated in Qt, not everything is suitable for automation.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Functional Testing | 7.9% |
| Qt Squish | 3.2% |
| Other | 88.9% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 20 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 71 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 10 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 2 |
| Large Enterprise | 9 |
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.
Take the complexity out of testing graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and human-machine interfaces (HMIs) – even in the face of product evolution and safety-critical applications.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
