We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Selenium HQ 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."The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"I like its simplicity."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"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."
"It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium."
"Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"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."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 90 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Selenium HQ 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 Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio and SmartBear TestComplete, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and BrowserStack. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Selenium HQ 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.