We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Postman based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The stop automation is a great feature."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"It's simple to set up."
"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."
"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 most valuable features of the solution are that it is easy to use and user-friendly."
"The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. Postman can be used as an extension in Google Chrome for those who do not wish to install it directly. Deployment took an hour and a half."
"We can also submit requests multiple times and it allows us to capture the response each time by using utility scripts."
"One of the most valuable aspects of Postman is scalability. We can scale the collection and for the multiple repositories of the collections."
"The solution is stable."
"It allowed us to understand the working and performance of the APIs."
"We are using the automation and performance testing tools."
"The most valuable feature is the user interface because it provides a clear space for the URL, headers, body, prerequisites, and tests."
"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."
"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."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"The solution has some user interface difficulties when conducting environment collections."
"There needs to be more flexibility surrounding the testing of SOAP APIs."
"One thing which Postman needs to improve is the documentation. The documentation of Postman is not that great when compared to other tools."
"If we have a certain build on one machine it won't work with another build even if we are using the same URL. It would give us a connection refuse. So developing environment compatibility would make it better."
"Should have a more improved easy-to-use interface."
"If they could implement auto-validations and assertions from SoapUI, that would be a very good feature."
"Postman could be improved by providing options for performance testing of APIs."
"Testing API is pretty straightforward in Postman, but it falls short when testing web services. For example, when we test web services, there is a visual component that we can import in SoapUI but not in Postman."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 4th in API Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Postman is ranked 1st in API Testing Tools with 52 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Postman is rated 8.2. 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 Postman writes "Reliable and easy to expand with a helpful API network". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText UFT Digital Lab, whereas Postman is most compared with Apache JMeter, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Postman report.
See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all API 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.
