We performed a comparison between OpenText Business Processing Testing and OpenText UFT One 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."This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."
"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"[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."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"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."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
Earn 20 points
OpenText Business Processing Testing is ranked 37th in Functional Testing Tools while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText Business Processing Testing is rated 7.8, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText Business Processing Testing writes "Excellent usability, but the solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with their ALM tool". 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". OpenText Business Processing Testing is most compared with , whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite. See our OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText UFT One 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.
