We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One, Parasoft SOAtest, and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The initial setup is relatively easy."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"It's simple to set up."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"Technical support is helpful."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"The solution is scalable."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"The solution is free to use."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"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 specialist resources."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users."