OpenText Functional Testing and Qt Squish compete in the software testing tools category, each offering distinct technological compatibility and unique features. Based on the data, Qt Squish appears to have the upper hand with robust UI component identification, seamless CI integration, and strong Qt environment support, while OpenText shines in heterogeneous application support and environments.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing supports multiple technologies including Oracle and PeopleSoft and offers advanced automation frameworks. It provides effective solutions for testing diverse applications. Qt Squish specializes in accurately mapping UI components, especially in Qt environments, facilitating CI system integration. It excels in script automation and offers strong support across various GUI technologies.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing is criticized for heavy memory usage and occasional crashes. It requires easier setup processes and enhanced cross-browser testing. Qt Squish could improve recording features and simplify its licensing model. Enhancements in object identification and additional functionalities like recovery scenarios are suggested for development.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing offers flexible deployment across on-premises and cloud environments but has mixed customer service reviews, including delayed responses. Qt Squish is mainly on-premises, praised for simplicity in setup and efficient partner support, though technical assistance could be polished further.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is expensive with high licensing costs, promising robust ROI through extensive system coverage, yet more competitive pricing is suggested. Qt Squish has a high price point, justified by productivity gains; its ROI is regarded positively, indicating potential in enhancing automation efficiency and reducing manual effort.
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.
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.
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.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
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.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
For the developer license, it is about $5200 a year.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
For the parts that have been automated in Qt, not everything is suitable for automation.
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.
