We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Functional Tester and OpenText UFT One 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."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."
"It is a stable solution."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"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."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"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 AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
"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."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
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 IBM Rational Functional Tester vs. OpenText UFT One 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.
