We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and TestProject 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."I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"The automation and AI are very good."
"The ease of web and mobile functional testing is pretty easy on TestProject."
"Since implementing this solution, our code management has been reduced by 40% to 60%."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The script-less part of it was good for novice users."
"Ability to carry out automatic testing without having coding knowledge."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"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."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"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."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"TestProject needs better support for integration with other products to provide a better overall solution for test planning and test data management."
"We'd like to see a direct cloud from TestProject instead of some other third party."
"In an upcoming release, there should be a SaaS offering available."
"I and some other experts may be able to understand the solution's reporting system, but a layperson won't understand it."
"Difficult trying to configure on more than one browser."
"The support is a weak point since they discontinued the tool."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews while TestProject is ranked 16th in Test Automation Tools with 6 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while TestProject is rated 7.2. 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 TestProject writes "An easy-to-use tool that saves time and functions within a limited budget". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas TestProject is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Testim. See our OpenText UFT One vs. TestProject report.
See our list of best Test Automation 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.
