We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"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."
"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."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"The integration tools could be better."
"I didn't use it very heavily. One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete. We have a lot of such scripts in our organization, and it would be very useful to have some option to easily move these scripts. It is currently possible to convert these scripts to TestComplete, but it is not easy. I have to write some code, but everything is not available immediately."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 71 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, UiPath Test Suite and Ranorex Studio, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, froglogic Squish and Eggplant Test. See our OpenText UFT One vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.