We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Atlassian, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites."The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"It is stable and reliable."
"Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"The product can scale."
"Business process management is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"It's simple to set up."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"Browser support needs improvement. Currently, it can only run on IE, Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on Firefox, doesn't work on Chrome, doesn't work on a Mac book. Those are the new technologies where most companies move towards. That's been outstanding for quite a while before it even became Micro Focus tools when it was still HP. Even before HP, that's always been an issue."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations."
"There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic."
"It is pricey."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"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."
"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". On the other hand, 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". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText Silk Test.
We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites 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.
