We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Testim 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."Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"It is a stable solution."
"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 automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"The product is easy to use."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"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."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"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."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Testim is rated 9.2. 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 Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Testsigma and Applitools. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Testim report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation 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.
