We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Oracle Application Testing Suite 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 find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"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 ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"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 most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"The graphics are very intuitive and it's very easy to get scale of development."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"The function test feature is valuable."
"We do not need a separate test management tool because we have there is a management tool. That is a very good feature. Secondly, it has an inbuilt performance testing tool, which is on flash. It has very good record and playback features as well. And apart from that, there is a good inspection feature. Since it comes with all of the packages, it's very good."
"We like that we don't need a separate management tool. This is a good feature. It also has an inbuilt performance tool which is on Flash. It has very good record and playback feature as well. The inspection tool is also very good. Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"The solution is scalable."
"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 artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"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."
"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 like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"I would like to see better dashboards."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite does encounter some lag. When I am trying to record something, the tool gets stuck."
More Oracle Application Testing Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Oracle Application Testing Suite is ranked 13th in Functional Testing Tools with 24 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Oracle Application Testing Suite is rated 7.8. 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 Oracle Application Testing Suite writes "Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Selenium HQ, whereas Oracle Application Testing Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud and Tricentis NeoLoad. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite 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.