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."Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"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"
"The graphics are very intuitive and it's very easy to get scale of development."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"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."
"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."
"User friendly UI / Tree view to work with adding steps."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"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."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"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."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite does encounter some lag. When I am trying to record something, the tool gets stuck."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"Lacks patches for new OS systems and doesn't work on a Mac."
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.