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."Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"OpenScript has many features that make it useful, including the ability to record and playback."
"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."
"The function test feature is valuable."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"The solution is scalable."
"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."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"[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."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"Lacks patches for new OS systems and doesn't work on a Mac."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
"I would like to see better dashboards."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
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 OpenText UFT Digital Lab, 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.