OpenText Functional Testing and Visual Studio Test Professional compete in the software testing category. OpenText seems to have the upper hand in platform compatibility and integration capabilities, while Visual Studio Test Professional stands out with its seamless integration in the Microsoft ecosystem and support for .NET projects.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers extensive compatibility with various platforms and excels in integration capabilities, especially with ALM. It allows creating 64-bit COM objects and supports desktop applications like SAP and Oracle. Visual Studio Test Professional integrates cohesively within the Microsoft ecosystem, supports .NET projects natively, and provides IntelliSense to enhance development efficiency.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing requires enhanced IDE usability and improvements in browser compatibility. Users report issues with occasional crashes and high resource usage. Visual Studio Test Professional is seen as expensive, with suggestions for better integration with modern tools, improved cross-platform capabilities, and enhanced support documentation.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is used primarily on-premises, with mixed reviews on support efficiency. Some users praise the technical support, while others find it inconsistent. Visual Studio Test Professional benefits from strong integration within Microsoft's ecosystem, and its customer service is reliable though potentially expensive.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is considered costly; however, its value lies in its versatility and comprehensive features, promising a positive ROI through reduced manual testing efforts. Visual Studio Test Professional, although expensive, offers robust functionality and strong integration with Microsoft products, providing a reasonable ROI. Both tools have high initial costs which might be a barrier for smaller organizations.
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.
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.
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.
Sometimes, the library version is not compatible with other libraries, causing errors in my application.
The product needs contextual help integrated within its interface.
The Git extensions are very basic and can be more extensive compared to other software focused on Git, like GitTower or SmartGit.
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.
The price is expensive.
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.
It supports cross-platform functionality.
Visual Studio Test Professional is highly valuable because it provides extensive extensions and plugins that assist in measuring code quality.
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.
