We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and SonarQube based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"It's enabled us to improve software quality and help us to disseminate best practices."
"The solution offers a very good community edition."
"Apart from the security point of view, I like that it makes it easy to detect code smells and other issues in terms of code quality and standards."
"SonarQube is designed well making it easy to use, simple to identify issues and find solutions to problems."
"The solution is stable."
"It has very good scalability and stability."
"It is an easy tool that you can deploy and configure. After that you can measure the history of your obligation and integrate it with other tools like GitLab or GitHub or Azure DevOps to do quality code analysis."
"This has improved our organization because it has helped to find Security Vulnerabilities."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"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."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"A better design of the interface and add some new rules."
"One thing to improve would be the integration. There is a steep learning curve to get it integrated."
"There are sometimes security breaches in our code, which aren't be caught by SonarQube. In the security area, SonarCube has to improve. It needs to better compete with other products."
"We had some issues where the Quality Gate check sometimes gets stuck and it is unclear."
"The security in SonarQube could be better."
"The exporting capabilities could be improved. Currently, exporting is fully dependent on the SonarQube environment."
"You may need to purchase add-ons to get the useability you desire."
"SonarQube could be improved by implementing inter-procedural code analysis capabilities, allowing for a more comprehensive detection of defects and vulnerabilities across the entire codebase."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 108 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Snyk.
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.
