We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Perforce QA Wizard Pro based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"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."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"The most valuable feature is the option to pull changes from others or make local changes in your own change list."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"Technical support could be improved."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"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."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"It would be very helpful if a queue was implemented to handle, for example, 100 requests at the same time."
Earn 20 points
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Perforce QA Wizard Pro is ranked 41st in Functional Testing Tools. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Perforce QA Wizard Pro is rated 5.0. 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 Perforce QA Wizard Pro writes "Shared change lists are helpful, but poor scalability leads to problems with instability". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Perforce QA Wizard Pro is most compared with .
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.