We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Visual Studio Test Professional 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."Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"Its initial setup process is easy."
"Visual Studio Test Professional is a very scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature has been to store all our packages in one place including SSIS packages, SQL tables, TFS and SSR."
"Performance-wise, it is a great tool."
"The whole suite is made for .NET development."
"Visual Studio Test Pro is super helpful for my Microsoft app work."
"The ability to quickly make your own components has been valuable."
"The user interface is very friendly."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"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 should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"The solution's deployment is not very easy and should be made easier."
"It is not good in terms of performance. When you open Visual Studio, you have to wait for a while to process your code. It uses a lot of resources and has a lot of features. If we could disable some of the features, it would be lighter and faster to use. Nowadays, for some of the projects, we use VS Code for JavaScript or Python. VS Code is very light and easy to use, whereas, in Visual Studio, we have to wait because it takes time to compile or run a project. It has a lot of competitors in terms of performance, such as Intelligent ID. Intelligent ID is very easy to use. It has many features, and it is lighter to use than Visual Studio. In terms of error handling, sometimes, it shows an error before you finish your code, which can be improved. It would be good if it has a version for Linux. I use VS Code on Linux, but I am not sure if Visual Studio has a version for Linux."
"The interface should be made attractive."
"I would appreciate some enhancements in the interface, maybe adding more color options."
"Sometimes Visual Studio is slow. It uses a lot of resources like memory and processing power. You should optimize the performance by only installing what you need on your machine. Don't install unnecessary things that will slow your machine."
"The documentation is limited."
"The data flow can be improved."
"Sometimes, the solution hangs, so its performance could be improved."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. 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 Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis qTest. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Visual Studio Test Professional 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.
