We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Visual Studio Test Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"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."
"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."
"The interface is easy to use."
"It is a very common and strong product. A lot of support is available for this product."
"The product is good to create big or small projects fastly. It is one of the leaders in the area."
"It is a good and user-friendly tool."
"It is very easy to use. You can handle a lot of things together at once in one package, which is a good point for us."
"The solution is very useful for compiling existing projects and developing new projects."
"Easy to use and easily scalable."
"We are satisfied with technical support. Communicating with them is very simple. We also have a lot of online resources to check and to study and to train our team with. The documentation is very clear and readily available."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"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."
"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."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"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."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"The product must provide more automation."
"The tool crashes and has high memory consumption."
"The price is reasonable, but it's not the best."
"The product must provide more integration."
"Sometimes, the solution hangs, so its performance could be improved."
"The data flow can be improved."
"We would like to be able to easily integrate this solution with our continuous integration tools, such as Jenkins."
"Enhancing the support for web application testing and load performance would be an improvement."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. 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 Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and TestRail. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Visual Studio Test Professional report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
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.
