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 entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"It is a stable solution."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"I like its simplicity."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"It is very stable."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"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."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"Technical support could be improved."
"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."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"Selenium HQ doesn't support Windows-based applications, so we need to integrate with the third-party vendor. It would be great if Selenium could include Windows-based automation. You need to integrate it with a third-party tool if you want to upload any files. When we interact with a Windows application, we usually use Tosca."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 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, SmartBear TestComplete and Eggplant Test, 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.
