We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and UiPath Test Suite 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."Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"Our team used to require five to six days to complete the entire release or execution cycle. Now, we're able to complete it within just one or one and a half days."
"UiPath's most valuable features are reusability and low-code aspects. It works across both desktop and web applications."
"It's useful for automating tasks."
"What I like most about UiPath Test Suite is that it's straightforward, and any user who knows how to use the UiPath Studio can learn how to create a test script in as fast as thirty minutes. There's nothing new you must learn to use UiPath Test Suite because it only has three sections: Given, Then, and When."
"We are finding bugs and defects much faster."
"It is a very scalable product."
"The detailed logging is invaluable."
"It facilitates the delegation of control to multiple users and offers an efficient way to organize tasks using labels."
"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."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"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."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"I'd like the solution to be even more automated."
"We have output arguments in the workflow. We can check results only by using those arguments. It would be better to have some more options, such as screen variables. For example, in a workflow, if we want to check if an activity is present inside, we should be able to get the output to UiPath Test Suite through the activity itself. That would be great for testing."
"UiPath could further enhance its functionality by simplifying the test case creation process within Test Suite."
"They could improve the visualization of the product."
"The reporting could be improved. Often, we need to email a report to higher management, we can directly get the report from there. Also, the error reporting could be better."
"I don't rate its ability to automate very well."
"UiPath’s Test Suite manual testing doesn’t work for our organization based on how the QA Analysts do their manual testing and the artifacts that are needed for deployment."
"Orchestrator is not easy to use or understand."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews while UiPath Test Suite is ranked 6th in Test Automation Tools with 17 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while UiPath Test Suite is rated 7.8. 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 UiPath Test Suite writes "Can be used by non-developers, and saves us time, but the manual testing needs improvement". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Ranorex Studio, whereas UiPath Test Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio, froglogic Squish and Opkey. See our OpenText UFT One vs. UiPath Test Suite report.
See our list of best Test Automation 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.
