We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Testim 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 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."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"The product is easy to use."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"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."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Testim is rated 9.2. 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 Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Testsigma and Applitools. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Testim report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation 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.
