We performed a comparison between Eggplant Test and OpenText UFT One 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."It provides very strong cross-platform support."
"It is easy to set up."
"We are able to now automate tests, which so far have been manual."
"The main feature of Eggplant Test is that it can do fully automated web testing and app testing."
"The most valuable features would be the image recognition and the OCR."
"Good text reading ability."
"We did see a massive return on investment from using Eggplant."
"Everything is happening on the layout or display that is used by the user. Eggplant prompts processes, like 'click here,' or 'look for this image.' Eggplant makes it possible for QA people and BAs, working in the actual display, to check if the software is providing the right images, the right text, and the right results. They don't have to go inside the code or to the TCP/IP layer. Everything is happening at the highest level."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"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 ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"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."
"Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence could improve by lowering the price."
"The solution would crash from time to time."
"They need to update the Linux. I think it's kind of an outdated Java Swing application."
"There was no free trial in it."
"The language is too specific; it is just for Eggplant."
"I would like to see standardized actions already built into Eggplant. For example, "wait eight seconds". That way, I wouldn't need to create it as an action. Right now, I have to program that wait and describe it as an action so that everybody knows it is an action that waits eight seconds... That way, somebody who is not familiar with programming processes like "if-else", or "for", or "while", would be able, from the first moment, and without programming, to put some easy-to-use, standardized, actions in place."
"Its performance and stability could be better."
"A step forward would be to have event support, because it is more or less linear at the moment."
"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."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
Eggplant Test is ranked 12th in Test Automation Tools with 16 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews. Eggplant Test is rated 7.8, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Eggplant Test writes "Empowers effective test automation with comprehensive platform coverage and scalability". On the other hand, 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". Eggplant Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Ranorex Studio, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Appium. See our Eggplant Test vs. OpenText UFT One report.
See our list of best Test Automation 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.
