IBM Rational Functional Tester vs OpenText UFT One comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
IBM Logo
1,111 views|638 comparisons
88% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
8,499 views|5,253 comparisons
87% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Functional Tester and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Regression Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Regression Testing Tools Report (Updated: April 2024).
768,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time.""It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good.""IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual.""The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."

More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pros →

"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high.""​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users.""The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent.""It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people.""The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier.""With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources.""The initial setup is relatively easy.""One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."

More OpenText UFT One Pros →

Cons
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run.""As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support.""They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool.""If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."

More IBM Rational Functional Tester Cons →

"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 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.""The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded.""Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient.""The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients.""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.""It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this.""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."

More OpenText UFT One Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."
  • More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
  • "The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
  • "It's an expensive solution."
  • "For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
  • "The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
  • "The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
  • "The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
  • "The price is one aspect that could be improved."
  • More OpenText UFT One Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    768,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time.
    Top Answer:The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to… more »
    Top Answer:The solution is used for test automation, and test data creation.
    Top Answer:We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well… more »
    Top Answer:My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
    Top Answer:The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on… more »
    Ranking
    10th
    Views
    1,111
    Comparisons
    638
    Reviews
    1
    Average Words per Review
    225
    Rating
    8.0
    2nd
    Views
    8,499
    Comparisons
    5,253
    Reviews
    20
    Average Words per Review
    694
    Rating
    7.9
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Rational Functional Tester
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    Learn More
    Overview
    IBM Rational Functional Tester is an automated functional testing and regression testing tool. This software provides automated testing capabilities for functional, regression, GUI, and data-driven testing. Rational Function Tester supports a range of applications, such as web-based, .Net, Java, Siebel, SAP, terminal emulator-based applications, PowerBuilder, Ajax, Adobe Flex, Dojo Toolkit, GEF, Adobe PDF documents, zSeries, iSeries, and pSeries.
    Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications. Read white paper
    Sample Customers
    Edumate
    Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company22%
    Financial Services Firm18%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    Insurance Company6%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    Government6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business11%
    Midsize Enterprise33%
    Large Enterprise56%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise68%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise75%
    Buyer's Guide
    Regression Testing Tools
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Regression Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    768,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 10th in Regression Testing Tools with 8 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Regression Testing Tools with 89 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.2, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". On the other hand, 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". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Selenium HQ, Katalon Studio, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca and Ranorex Studio, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite.

    See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors and best Functional Testing Tools vendors.

    We monitor all Regression 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.