OpenText Functional Testing and Qualibrate are two solutions in the software testing arena. OpenText has an advantage in terms of pricing and support, while Qualibrate is favored for its advanced features, which justifies its cost for many users.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing is notable for its automation capabilities and extensive integration with enterprise applications. It efficiently supports GUI testing, database testing, and API testing, making it versatile for numerous environments. In contrast, Qualibrate is recognized for its simplified test case documentation and streamlined workflow processes, leading to efficient test setups. Its innovative approach to process management and documentation makes it an appealing choice.
Room for Improvement: OpenText could enhance its offering by improving ease of use for testers with limited scripting experience and reducing initial setup complexity. Expanding cloud integration features and supporting more modern operating environments would be beneficial. Qualibrate could improve by expanding its comprehensive integration capabilities with legacy systems, enhancing scalability options for larger enterprises, and offering more detailed reporting features to facilitate in-depth analysis.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing provides a traditional deployment with extensive customer support, catering to enterprises with complex testing needs. Qualibrate, on the other hand, offers a cloud-based deployment focusing on ease of use and quick startup, complemented by responsive customer service. Both tools cater to different needs, with OpenText suitable for large-scale operations and Qualibrate designed for rapid implementation.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing involves a substantial initial setup cost, posing a hurdle for smaller businesses but delivering strong ROI through a comprehensive feature set over time. Alternatively, Qualibrate offers more affordable initial pricing, aimed at small to medium businesses seeking a quicker ROI with lower initial investment. While OpenText demands higher upfront expenses, Qualibrate offers faster returns on investment.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
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.
I would rate the support for this product a seven on a scale of one to 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.
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.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
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.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The ease of being able to create scripts using the AI tools are the differentiating factors.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Functional Testing | 7.1% |
| Qualibrate | 0.8% |
| Other | 92.1% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 20 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 71 |
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.
