OpenText Functional Testing and ZAPTEST are products competing in the software testing automation category. Comparative analysis indicates that ZAPTEST has the upper hand due to its comprehensive feature set that justifies its cost.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers advanced test automation capabilities, smooth integration with other OpenText products, and advanced Excel file support for data management. ZAPTEST provides cross-platform support, the ability to handle various script formats, and sophisticated OCR capabilities, which enable it to automate testing across diverse environments.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could improve by expanding its cross-platform compatibility and enhancing its OCR capabilities. Additionally, increasing flexibility in handling non-Web-based applications and reducing initial setup complexity might boost its appeal. ZAPTEST can improve by lowering its initial investment cost, enhancing its integration with third-party tools, and refining its user interface for better accessibility to novice users.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing offers straightforward deployment, especially beneficial for existing OpenText clients, and is well-supported by professional customer service. ZAPTEST provides easy configuration across multiple platforms, often requiring minimal initial setup, making it highly suitable for diverse testing needs. Both products offer good customer service, but OpenText's integration with its suite can enhance deployment efficiency.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing typically offers a more cost-effective upfront pricing model, providing a predictable ROI for organizations integrated with its ecosystem. In contrast, ZAPTEST might have higher setup costs, but it offers potential substantial ROI through its extensive testing capabilities that support multiple platforms. The decision between the two products often depends on balancing initial cost against desired testing flexibility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
