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."It offers a wide range of testing."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"Postman is useful for API testing."
"Postman helps to write pre-request scripts and make a collection out of each request. You don’t have to spend time writing or copying the requests. The solution lets you integrate multiple environments and their features. Either the tool’s pro or premium version lets you do the merge and pull request for the Git directly."
"The scalability is good."
"The environment variables are a valuable feature because I can easily switch them and see all the developments in different cycles and stages."
"We are using the automation and performance testing tools."
"We can test APIs. We know if they are functional or throwing any errors."
"No coding required."
"The solution provides visibility for PDF reports without needing to install plugins."
"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."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"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."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"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."
"One area that could be better is collection management."
"If they could implement auto-validations and assertions from SoapUI, that would be a very good feature."
"UI testing needs to be added to the solution."
"The reporting could be better. It should give you a detailed PDF report after you run a test."
"If you have knowledge of JavaScript, the initial setup is easy and straightforward. If not, it may take some time to learn about JavaScript before starting the implementation."
"Multi-part requests should be handled in the octet-stream."
"One thing which Postman needs to improve is the documentation. The documentation of Postman is not that great when compared to other tools."
"Reporting can be better. If you have bigger APIs, it takes time."
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.
