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 is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"OpenScript has many features that make it useful, including the ability to record and playback."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"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."
"The solution is scalable."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"The graphics are very intuitive and it's very easy to get scale of development."
"User friendly UI / Tree view to work with adding steps."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"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."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"The solution is expensive."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
"I would like to see better dashboards."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite does encounter some lag. When I am trying to record something, the tool gets stuck."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"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 Selenium HQ, 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.