We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Postman based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"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 solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"The product is easy to implement."
"Postman uses the DRY framework of JavaScript and that framework is easy and a good way to put assertions on responses."
"The most valuable feature of Postman is the verification and testing of APIs."
"The solution collects scenarios and allows for testing SOAP API, REST API and API automation at the same time."
"With Postman you can do automation. Automation has increased efficiency by more than 30% or 40%. Because the speed has increased, it's also possible for us to do in-sprint automation testing."
"Postman lets you create, manage, and validate a suite of tests. It has several features to help you organize your test suite. You can also automate stuff with a lot of validations and assertions. Postman supports GraphQL, and you can do various kinds of calls."
"The solution is stable."
"It helps me to test APIs independently. It also supports hosting."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"The solution is expensive."
"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."
"Should have a more improved easy-to-use interface."
"We do the implementation of Postman and give support. We had to use two engineers for the implementation, one senior and one junior for the process."
"We cannot see transaction times in the product."
"I would like to see advanced automation in reference to Postman."
"We have previously used Tosca which allowed us to verify information using authentications. It would be useful if this was also possible using Postman. In a future release, Postman should connect to DB."
"I have recently noticed that, for some reason, I am not able to import collections in JSON. It is weird because I was able to do it before. When you create a new collection and documentation, in tests, you usually have to click Save. If you don't click Save, your collections don't sync with other devices, which is something I don't like. It is not clear for the users in a shared workspace, and I usually forget to click Save and end up losing all the collections that I created. I create a lot of routes, and clicking Save all the time isn't efficient. Instead of clicking Save all the time, there should be an option to save everything in one go."
"I would like to see improvements in the maintenance of the scripts and their collections. It is really painful that the user cannot drag and drop. It was also painful to create the standard suite of operations for the product. I am not sure if this is improved in the tool’s latest versions. The maintenance of the complex scenarios prompted us to use the solution only for unit testing. In the future, we may switch to the k6 framework."
"UI testing needs to be added to the solution."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 4th in API Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Postman is ranked 1st in API Testing Tools with 52 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Postman is rated 8.2. 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 Postman writes "Reliable and easy to expand with a helpful API network". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText UFT Digital Lab, whereas Postman is most compared with Apache JMeter, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Postman report.
See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all API 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.
