We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Testim 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."It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"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."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"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."
"It is a stable solution."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The product is easy to use."
"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."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Testim is rated 9.2. 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 Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Testsigma and Applitools. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Testim report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation 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.
