We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"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 inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"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."
"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."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
"Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"The integration tools could be better."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 71 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, UiPath Test Suite and Ranorex Studio, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, froglogic Squish and Eggplant Test. See our OpenText UFT One vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.