We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Visual Studio Test Professional 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 stop automation is a great feature."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"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 like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"The ability to quickly make your own components has been valuable."
"The solution is easy to use and they have also integrated with Microsoft."
"It is a very common and strong product. A lot of support is available for this product."
"I was satisfied with the support given by customer service."
"The solution is very useful for compiling existing projects and developing new projects."
"We are satisfied with technical support. Communicating with them is very simple. We also have a lot of online resources to check and to study and to train our team with. The documentation is very clear and readily available."
"The setup is easy and straightforward."
"The solution is very stable."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"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."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"It is not good in terms of performance. When you open Visual Studio, you have to wait for a while to process your code. It uses a lot of resources and has a lot of features. If we could disable some of the features, it would be lighter and faster to use. Nowadays, for some of the projects, we use VS Code for JavaScript or Python. VS Code is very light and easy to use, whereas, in Visual Studio, we have to wait because it takes time to compile or run a project. It has a lot of competitors in terms of performance, such as Intelligent ID. Intelligent ID is very easy to use. It has many features, and it is lighter to use than Visual Studio. In terms of error handling, sometimes, it shows an error before you finish your code, which can be improved. It would be good if it has a version for Linux. I use VS Code on Linux, but I am not sure if Visual Studio has a version for Linux."
"The tool crashes and has high memory consumption."
"The service right now is far too expensive. You need to pay per user."
"The interface should be made attractive."
"The vendor must release a lightweight version of the solution."
"The documentation is limited."
"The server that we use is very slow so that is concerning for us."
"The solution should be cheaper."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Visual Studio Test Professional 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 Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis qTest. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Visual Studio Test Professional 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.
