We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Perforce QA Wizard Pro based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."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 is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"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's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"The most valuable feature is the option to pull changes from others or make local changes in your own change list."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"It would be very helpful if a queue was implemented to handle, for example, 100 requests at the same time."
Earn 20 points
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Perforce QA Wizard Pro is ranked 41st in Functional Testing Tools. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Perforce QA Wizard Pro is rated 5.0. 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 Perforce QA Wizard Pro writes "Shared change lists are helpful, but poor scalability leads to problems with instability". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Perforce QA Wizard Pro is most compared with .
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.