We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Oracle Application Testing Suite 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."It's simple to set up."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"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 ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"The function test feature is valuable."
"OpenScript has many features that make it useful, including the ability to record and playback."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"I like the functional testing. There's a product inside OATS called OLT, Oracle Load Testing. You can do the load testing without depending on any other tool"
"We like that we don't need a separate management tool. This is a good feature. It also has an inbuilt performance tool which is on Flash. It has very good record and playback feature as well. The inspection tool is also very good. Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite's most valuable feature is it works very smoothly with all Oracle Java-based applications."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"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."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite does encounter some lag. When I am trying to record something, the tool gets stuck."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"Lacks patches for new OS systems and doesn't work on a Mac."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
More Oracle Application Testing Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Oracle Application Testing Suite is ranked 13th in Functional Testing Tools with 24 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Oracle Application Testing 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 Oracle Application Testing Suite writes "Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText UFT Digital Lab, whereas Oracle Application Testing Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud and Tricentis NeoLoad. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite 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.