We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Selenium HQ 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.
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"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 solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"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."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"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."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"Selenium HQ doesn't support Windows-based applications, so we need to integrate with the third-party vendor. It would be great if Selenium could include Windows-based automation. You need to integrate it with a third-party tool if you want to upload any files. When we interact with a Windows application, we usually use Tosca."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Selenium HQ 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 Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Eggplant Test, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and BrowserStack. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Selenium HQ 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.
