We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"Selenium integration."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"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."
"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 solution does not have proper scripting."
"Technical support could be improved."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"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."
"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."
"Headless testing would be a big improvement."
"The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"The integration tools could be better."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
"In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 71 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, UiPath Test Suite and Ranorex Studio, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, froglogic Squish and Eggplant Test. See our OpenText UFT One vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.