We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Postman based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"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."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"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."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"Good at simulating the API code from a fictitious client application to check API behavior."
"In Postman, we have an option to directly import a call, make it a Postman collection, and execute it in a batch. This feature is very useful. It saves a lot of time. The manual effort is also reduced when we can just pick it in a Postman collection and then run and execute it to get the results."
"The API testing features are valuable."
"It is simple, easy to use and a good tool."
"What is most valuable for me is that we can create and share collections between the team members."
"It's easy to see different versions of responses."
"No coding required."
"The most valuable feature of Postman is the verification and testing of APIs."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"The solution is expensive."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"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."
"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 to see videos or user-friendly reference documentation to help us figure out the solution or troubleshoot issues on our own."
"The scalability of the solution can be improved."
"If they could implement auto-validations and assertions from SoapUI, that would be a very good feature."
"The solution could be more user-friendly."
"I would like to see more integrations with other platforms."
"There needs to be more flexibility surrounding the testing of SOAP APIs."
"I live in Turkey, so for me, the value of dollar currency is high...Postman can change its pricing policy and decrease the prices for Turkey."
"Multi-part requests should be handled in the octet-stream."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 4th in API Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Postman is ranked 1st in API Testing Tools with 52 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Postman is rated 8.2. 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 Postman writes "Reliable and easy to expand with a helpful API network". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText Silk Test, whereas Postman is most compared with Apache JMeter, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Postman report.
See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all API 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.
