OpenText UFT One and Qualibrate compete in the software testing domain. OpenText UFT One generally takes an upper hand in advanced testing and deployment flexibility for large enterprises, while Qualibrate excels in simplified testing processes for rapid implementation.
Features: OpenText UFT One offers extensive support for multiple protocols, robust automation suited for complex environments, and comprehensive integration capabilities. Qualibrate provides intuitive process documentation, efficient testing features to reduce cycle times, and promotes collaboration within teams.
Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One can be overwhelming for smaller teams, and reducing the complexity of its feature set could be beneficial. It requires significant setup and infrastructure, which could be optimized for ease of use. Its deployment process could be streamlined to suit less complex environments. Qualibrate could enhance its testing capabilities for more complex projects. It might benefit from expanding its integration options with third-party tools and improving its protocol support for a wider range of testing scenarios.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Qualibrate's cloud-based deployment simplifies adoption, needing minimal infrastructure and offering strong customer support during implementation. OpenText UFT One supports hybrid models, which is beneficial for complex ecosystems, but requires more customer interaction for smooth deployment.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One has a higher setup cost reflecting its capabilities, delivering significant ROI when fully utilized in complex setups. Qualibrate is more cost-effective with quick value realization, attractive for teams focusing on cost-efficiency and fast returns.
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.
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.
