We performed a comparison between OpenText Silk Test, OpenText UFT One, and Perforce QA Wizard Pro based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"It's simple to set up."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"The most valuable feature is the option to pull changes from others or make local changes in your own change list."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"It would be very helpful if a queue was implemented to handle, for example, 100 requests at the same time."
Earn 20 points
Earn 20 points
