We performed a comparison between IBM DevOps Test UI and OpenText UFT One 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."IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
IBM DevOps Test UI is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. IBM DevOps Test UI is rated 7.2, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM DevOps Test UI writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". On the other hand, 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". IBM DevOps Test UI is most compared with Katalon Studio, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ and Ranorex Studio, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite. See our IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText UFT One 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.
