We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and UiPath Test Suite 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."My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"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."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"It is a stable solution."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"Our team used to require five to six days to complete the entire release or execution cycle. Now, we're able to complete it within just one or one and a half days."
"It's effective at testing whatever automation we've built or making sure the automation we've built is working fine."
"Being able to use regular expressions, activities, and attributes is valuable."
"In terms of integration with other lifecycle tools and applications, UiPath Test Suite works very well because of the basis of RPA, and how RPA and automation can handle different applications and different areas of expertise."
"We also don't develop test robots like typing codes; we program them with drag-and-drop features."
"What I like most about UiPath Test Suite is that it's straightforward, and any user who knows how to use the UiPath Studio can learn how to create a test script in as fast as thirty minutes. There's nothing new you must learn to use UiPath Test Suite because it only has three sections: Given, Then, and When."
"The console, in a single pane, allows us to understand where we are in the testing environment."
"UiPath's most valuable features are reusability and low-code aspects. It works across both desktop and web applications."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"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."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"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."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"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."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Orchestrator is not easy to use or understand."
"The test manager component could be improved."
"UiPath could further enhance its functionality by simplifying the test case creation process within Test Suite."
"I don't rate its ability to automate very well."
"UiPath’s Test Suite manual testing doesn’t work for our organization based on how the QA Analysts do their manual testing and the artifacts that are needed for deployment."
"Our primary application is built on Windows, so we've faced no significant challenges. However, I think mobile automation is one area where the solution still needs some work."
"We are facing problems specifically with Desk Manager."
"They could improve the visualization of the product."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews while UiPath Test Suite is ranked 6th in Test Automation Tools with 17 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while UiPath Test Suite is rated 7.8. 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 UiPath Test Suite writes "Can be used by non-developers, and saves us time, but the manual testing needs improvement". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Ranorex Studio, whereas UiPath Test Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio, froglogic Squish and Opkey. See our OpenText UFT One vs. UiPath Test Suite report.
See our list of best Test Automation 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.
