Dec 01, 2021
UFT One is the one you need.
OpenText UFT One and OpenText UFT Developer compete in the software testing automation category, with UFT One having the upper hand due to its broad application support and extensive feature set.
Features: OpenText UFT One is notable for its comprehensive automation capabilities, supporting a wide range of applications and platforms. This includes desktop, web, and mobile testing with a focus on GUI and API testing. Key features are enhanced object identification, data-driven testing, and support for various automation frameworks. OpenText UFT Developer is designed for developers, integrating functional testing into the development process with IDE support such as Visual Studio and Eclipse. It features support for continuous integration pipelines, facilitating seamless DevOps integration.
Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One could improve in speed, memory usage, and browser compatibility. There is also a desire for better integration with modern technologies and a more intuitive development environment. OpenText UFT Developer could enhance its offering by supporting additional programming languages and improving third-party integration. The product's high resource consumption and limited support for non-web technologies are notable criticisms.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One is primarily used in on-premises environments, reflecting a preference for security. UFT Developer offers flexibility with public cloud deployment to support agile cycles. Customer service perceptions vary, with UFT One seen as slower. Users of UFT Developer perceive customer support more favorably due to recent enhancements, though escalation is often required for quick problem resolution across both products.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One is recognized for a higher price, justified by its extensive feature set and compatibility with multiple environments, offering strong ROI through enhanced test coverage and efficiency. However, users express concerns about initial costs and licensing complexity. UFT Developer, while still costly, provides flexible licensing appealing to smaller teams or cloud-based efforts. It offers substantial improvements in development cycles and code quality, offsetting expenses. Both tools claim strong ROI when compared to manual testing costs, yet UFT Developer's pricing can be more prohibitive.
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.
Initially, it was quite poor, but it seems they are making efforts to improve.
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.
We regularly update the product, and overall, it is stable.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary.
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.
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
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.
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio.
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.
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
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.
