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."Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"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."
"The solution has a wide variety of features and an open-source community that you are able to learn Java, JavaScript, or any other programing language."
"The tool helps us to monitor and manage violations. It manages the bugs and security violations."
"Before you even compile, it can catch known vulnerability issues or patterns."
"Any developer can easily identify issues using the process flow or steps provided by SonarQube. In terms of integration, SonarQube makes it quite easy, simplifying the steps for users."
"When comparing other static code analysis tools, SonarQube has fewer false-positive issues being reported. They have a lot of support for different tech stacks. It covers the entire developer community which includes Salesforce or it could be the regular Java.net project. It has actually sufficed all the needs in one tool for static code analysis."
"The features of SonarQube that I find most valuable for identifying code smells are its comprehensive code analysis capabilities, which cover various aspects of code sustainability."
"If you want to have your code scanned and timed then this is a good tool."
"We have the software metrics that SonarQube gives us, which is something we did not have before. This helps us work towards aiming coding standards to empower us to move in the direction of better code quality. SonarQube provides targets and metrics for that."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"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."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"If you don't have any experience with the configuration or how to configure the files, it can be complicated."
"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."
"We had some issues scanning the master branch but when we upgraded to version 7.9 we noticed it does scan the master branch but we had to do a workaround for it to happen. This process could be improved in a future release."
"SonarQube needs to improve its support model. They do not work 24/7, and they do not provide weekend support in case things go wrong. They only have a standard 8:00 am to 5:00 pm support model in which you have to raise a support ticket and wait. The support model is not effective for premium customers."
"The tool needs to be more compatible with C/C++ language"
"This is a well-rounded solution, however, some features could be made available on the free version. The price of the solution could be reduced."
"The product's pricing could be lower."
"The solution could improve the management reports by making them easier to understand for the technical team that needs to review them."
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.
