We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Selenium HQ 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.
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"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."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"It is a good automation tool."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications"
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"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."
"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."
"Technical support could be improved."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"It takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Selenium HQ 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 Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Eggplant Test, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and BrowserStack. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing 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.
