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.
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"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's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"It is a scalable solution."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"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."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
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.
