We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and SonarQube based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."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."
"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"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."
"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."
"The solution offers a very good community edition."
"The fact that the solution does security scanning is valuable."
"The reporting and the results are quick. It gets integrated within the pipeline well."
"Can tweak rules and feed them into our build pipelines."
"It is a good deal compared to all other tools on the market."
"It is a very good tool for analysis and security vulnerability checking."
"The solution has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages."
"The solution's user interface is very user-friendly."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"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 should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"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."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"A little bit more emphasis on security and a bit more security scanning features would be nice."
"SonarQube could be improved by implementing inter-procedural code analysis capabilities, allowing for a more comprehensive detection of defects and vulnerabilities across the entire codebase."
"The security in SonarQube could be better."
"We had some issues scanning the master branch but when we upgraded to version 7.9 we noticed it does scan the master branch but we had to do a workaround for it to happen. This process could be improved in a future release."
"We've been using the Community Edition, which means that we get to use it at our leisure, and they're kind enough to literally give it to us. However, it takes a fair amount of effort to figure out how to get everything up and running. Since we didn't go with the professional paid version, we're not entitled to support. Of course that could be self-correcting if we were to make the step to buy into this and really use it. Then their technical support would be available to us to make strides for using it better."
"The solution could improve by having better-consulting services."
"SonarQube could improve its static application security testing as per the industry standard."
"In the next release, I would like to have notifications because now, it is a bit difficult. I think that's a feature which we could add there and it would benefit the users as well. For every full request, they should be able to see their bugs or vulnerability directly on the surface."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 112 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while SonarQube 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 SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and GitHub Advanced Security.
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.