OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One comparison

You must select at least 2 products to compare!
OpenText Logo
3,060 views|1,843 comparisons
77% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
11,332 views|6,941 comparisons
87% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary
Updated on Aug 25, 2022

We performed a comparison between Micro Focus UFT Developer and Micro Focus UFT One based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.

  • Ease of Deployment: Most users feel the deployment of both solutions is easy and straightforward.
  • Features: Micro Focus UFT Developer users feel the solution is stable for desktop UI and mobile-based applications, user-friendly, and offers great object repository features. Users would like to see better integration with other solutions at a lower cost.

    Micro Focus UFT One users like the fluid automation features with various technologies, which helps to identify anomalies earlier and cut costs significantly. The solution offers seamless integration with many of today’s popular solutions, however it can be very heavy, slow, and a bit buggy at times. Users feel overall that the user interface is a bit dated and needs an update.

    Users of both solutions would like them to be more scriptless.

  • Pricing: Users of both solutions feel the licensing and pricing can be very expensive.
  • Service and Support: Users of both solutions tell us there is room for improvement regarding the service and support.

Comparison Results: Micro Focus UFT One ranks higher in this comparison. It is more up-to-date and provides for better integration with many of today's popular solutions and technologies.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT Developer vs. OpenText UFT One Report (Updated: March 2024).
767,667 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Q&A Highlights
Question: Which product supports Cross Browser Testing: UFT Developer or UFT One?
Answer: UFT One is the one you need.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The most valuable features are the object repository.""One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library.""The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf.""The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application.""It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE.""The cost is the most important factor in this tool.""The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases.""The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."

More OpenText UFT Developer Pros →

"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation.""I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well.""The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel.""The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier.""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.""The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments.""The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies.""It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."

More OpenText UFT One Pros →

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability.""The tool could be a little easier.""It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support.""Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise.""We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated.""The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added.""The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement.""The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

More OpenText UFT Developer Cons →

"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded.""I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better.""They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests.""The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script.""One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all.""They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost.""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.""One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."

More OpenText UFT One Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
  • "The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
  • "The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
  • "When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
  • "It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
  • "The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
  • "Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
  • "The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
  • More OpenText UFT Developer Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
  • "The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
  • "It's an expensive solution."
  • "For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
  • "The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
  • "The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
  • "The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
  • "The price is one aspect that could be improved."
  • More OpenText UFT One Pricing and Cost Advice →

    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    767,667 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Answers from the Community
    Subhash Pasupuleti
    StephenDavis - PeerSpot reviewerStephenDavis
    Real User

    Hi Subhash.

    Both tools can:

    UFT One - allows you to automate functional and regression testing for the widest range of applications and technologies can supports testing GUI, web, mobile or API applications.

    UFT Developer - is powerful and lightweight functional automation software for Agile and DevOps teams, built specifically for continuous testing and continuous integration.  It allows you to create tests in your favourite IDEs and to write robust and reusable test automation scripts using JavaScript, Java or C#. Get fast feedback from your test execution with the lightweight but detailed results report.

    UFT One includes a licence to UFT Developer.

    If you don't need the additional support in UFT One, the UFT Developer is the tool you need.

    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.
    Top Answer:The pricing is competitive. It is affordable and average.
    Top Answer:Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars.
    Top Answer:We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well… more »
    Top Answer:My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
    Top Answer:The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on… more »
    Average Words per Review
    Average Words per Review
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    Learn More
    With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.
    Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications. Read white paper
    Sample Customers
    Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
    Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
    Top Industries
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    Comms Service Provider12%
    Financial Services Firm22%
    Computer Software Company14%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    Company Size
    Small Business5%
    Midsize Enterprise24%
    Large Enterprise71%
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise76%
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise75%
    Buyer's Guide
    OpenText UFT Developer vs. OpenText UFT One
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT Developer vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    767,667 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 14th in Test Automation Tools with 34 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish, Original Software TestDrive and Selenium HQ, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Ranorex Studio and UiPath Test Suite. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. OpenText UFT One report.

    See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

    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.