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."The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"Being able to use regular expressions, activities, and attributes is valuable."
"It's effective at testing whatever automation we've built or making sure the automation we've built is working fine."
"We also don't develop test robots like typing codes; we program them with drag-and-drop features."
"Test Suite has multiple tools that are fully integrated. It has everything you need to record your test cases, generate your documentation, and integrate synthetic data with your Orchestrator. I like the integrated aspect of it. The biggest advantage of UiPath is that it not only tests but also integrates with all the other services to offer a complete package."
"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."
"In terms of integration with other lifecycle tools and applications, UiPath Test Suite works very well because of the basis of RPA, and how RPA and automation can handle different applications and different areas of expertise."
"We can generate our own workflow. In our case, it is a report on the PDF file. In the reporting category, we generally verify a couple of things and generate a lot of reports at the end of the day. It provides some useful details about the data captured from the PDF that we can put into an Excel file."
"The console, in a single pane, allows us to understand where we are in the testing environment."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is expensive."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"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."
"At FORWARD VI, we see new automations being built around AI and the ability to have developers understand how they can drive some of those AI capabilities with Studio. We are starting to see that. They should also drive that with UiPath Test Suite so that we can not only build that development side faster; we can also develop the tests that go along with it, hopefully automatically."
"Storing the test scripts is what needs to improve in the UiPath Test Suite, as it's currently a challenge to some extent. Maintaining the files is a bit challenging, especially when you need to keep those locally."
"I'd like the solution to be even more automated."
"The test manager component could be improved."
"We are facing problems specifically with Desk Manager."
"Our primary application is built on Windows, so we've faced no significant challenges. However, I think mobile automation is one area where the solution still needs some work."
"We'd like to see the solution integrate with more code or local frameworks."
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, froglogic Squish, Katalon Studio and Eggplant Test. 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.