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."The initial setup is relatively easy."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"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."
"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"I like the functional testing. There's a product inside OATS called OLT, Oracle Load Testing. You can do the load testing without depending on any other tool"
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"User friendly UI / Tree view to work with adding steps."
"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 most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"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."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"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."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite does encounter some lag. When I am trying to record something, the tool gets stuck."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
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.