We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Panaya Test Dynamix 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."This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"Provides better monitoring for testing campaigns and business process testing."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to copy the scenarios and as we do a rollout we can efficiently complete test three and put it somewhere else under a new subsidiary."
"The test repository to follow the test progress is most valuable because we can easily create and manage a huge number of test scripts. We can copy and paste, replicate, and drag and drop many tests scripts. We can create test scripts en masse. When you have a high volume of tests, the tool is quite useful. It works well when you want to manage a lot of tests, such as you have 1,000 or more test scripts."
"Test migration from HPE are done automatically. We can extract our tests from HPE, and they convert it into the Panaya format."
"The initial setup was not complex and the product itself is very easy to configure and use."
"It is easy for business users to use who are not familiar with testing tools."
"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."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"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."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"The setup of Panaya Recorder is a bit complex. Panaya is a SaaS application, but you need to install some components on your computer. You need to set up your computer to allow Panaya Recorder to work. There are five or six things to do each time you install Panaya for any user. If you miss something, Panaya Recorder doesn't work. So, it is complex to install."
"Support is reactive and in English only."
"They provide options for custom fields or tabs, but customization of workflows would be great."
"It would be nice to be able to test offline. What I mean by that is today most of the time things are in the cloud, but sometimes when we are in factories and we do not have network access and we should be able to download a test script into our PCs and do the test offline. Once that is complete we can re-upload it when we have a network connection."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Panaya Test Dynamix is ranked 23rd in Functional Testing Tools with 4 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Panaya Test Dynamix is rated 8.6. 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 Panaya Test Dynamix writes "More than reliable, with satisfied results for our needs, and excellent testing options". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Panaya Test Dynamix is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Tricentis qTest, Worksoft Certify, OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Selenium HQ. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Panaya Test Dynamix 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.