We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Telerik Test Studio 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 shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"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."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Telerik Test Studio is ranked 18th in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Telerik Test Studio 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 Telerik Test Studio writes "Very good performance and load testing capabilities". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Telerik Test Studio is most compared with Selenium HQ, Ranorex Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio and Tricentis Tosca. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Telerik Test Studio report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation 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.