We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Functional Tester and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"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 The information about UFT One was outdated.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."
"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."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.2, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". 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". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Katalon Studio, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ and Ranorex Studio, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite.
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.
