We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and SonarQube based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"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."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"Provides local scanning for developers."
"If you want to have your code scanned and timed then this is a good tool."
"Integrate it into the developers' workbench so that they can bench check their code against what will be done in the server-based audit version."
"Before you even compile, it can catch known vulnerability issues or patterns."
"The static code analysis of the solution is the most important aspect for us. When it comes to security breaches within the code, we can leverage some rules to allow us to identify the repetition in our code and the possible targets that we may have. It makes it very easy to review our code for security purposes."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable features are the dashboard reports and the ease of integrating it with Jenkins."
"SonarQube is designed well making it easy to use, simple to identify issues and find solutions to problems."
"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'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"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 price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"The product needs to integrate other security tools for security scanning."
"The scanning part could be improved in SonarQube. We have used Coverity for scanning, and we have the critical issues reported by Coverity. When we used SonarQube for scanning and looked at the results, it seems that some of them have incorrect input. This part can be improved for C and C++ languages."
"There are times that we have the database crash. However, this might be an issue with how we have configured it and not a software issue. Apart from this, I do not see any issues with the solution."
"SonarQube can improve by scanning the internal library which currently it does not do. We are looking for a solution for this."
"There needs to be a shareable reporting piece or something we can click and generate easily."
"If you don't have any experience with the configuration or how to configure the files, it can be complicated."
"The product's pricing could be lower."
"I have found this solution creates more noise than competitors."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 112 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. 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 SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Snyk.
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.
