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."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."
"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."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"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."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"OpenScript has many features that make it useful, including the ability to record and playback."
"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."
"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 function test feature is valuable."
"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."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"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."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"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."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"Technical support could be improved."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"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."
"Lacks patches for new OS systems and doesn't work on a Mac."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
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.