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."The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"The solution is scalable."
"The graphics are very intuitive and it's very easy to get scale of development."
"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"
"User friendly UI / Tree view to work with adding steps."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"We do not need a separate test management tool because we have there is a management tool. That is a very good feature. Secondly, it has an inbuilt performance testing tool, which is on flash. It has very good record and playback features as well. And apart from that, there is a good inspection feature. Since it comes with all of the packages, it's very good."
"OpenScript has many features that make it useful, including the ability to record and playback."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"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."
"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."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"I would like to see better dashboards."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"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."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"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.