Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] vs OpenText UFT One vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
OpenText Logo
views| comparisons
100% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
11,079 views|6,814 comparisons
87% willing to recommend
SmartBear Logo
5,893 views|4,121 comparisons
85% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Micro Focus Service Test [EOL], OpenText UFT One, and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: April 2024).
769,599 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
  • "It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
  • "The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
  • "It's an expensive solution."
  • "For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
  • "The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
  • "The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
  • "The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
  • "The price is one aspect that could be improved."
  • More OpenText UFT One Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "The product is becoming more and more expensive."
  • "My advice so far, is that while it’s not quite as powerful and easy to use as UFT, its price tag more than makes up for it."
  • "The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
  • "Buy modules on demand. If you have a four-person team and they will each automate tests only 25% of the time, it's better to buy a floating licence and share the tool during the work day."
  • "TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module."
  • "This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
  • "The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
  • "The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
  • More SmartBear TestComplete Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    769,599 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Top Answer:We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing MicroFocus… more »
    Top Answer:My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
    Top Answer:The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and… more »
    Top Answer:This company offers end-to-end capabilities for test suite creation and execution. One feature that I particularly… more »
    Top Answer:There are certain challenges related to the license management system in place. It comes with a high cost. An annual… more »
    Top Answer:At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they… more »
    Ranking
    Unranked
    In Functional Testing Tools
    2nd
    Views
    11,079
    Comparisons
    6,814
    Reviews
    20
    Average Words per Review
    694
    Rating
    8.1
    10th
    Views
    5,893
    Comparisons
    4,121
    Reviews
    7
    Average Words per Review
    503
    Rating
    7.1
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Service Test, HPE Service Test
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    Learn More
    Overview

    Micro Focus Service Test is based on Virtual User Generator (VuGen) like Micro Focus LoadRunner software, which is code-centric and uses a technical interface that can be challenging for functional testing teams to utilize. It has also had instances of difficulty parsing some Web Services Description Languages (WSDLs) for complex services.

    Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications. Read white paper

    What is SmartBear TestComplete?

    TestComplete is a reliable, sturdy automated testing platform created by SmartBear Software. SmartBear Software is a worldwide technological leader known for developing quality enterprise-class development and testing solutions.

    TestComplete simplifies the process of creating tests for numerous applications, including, but not limited to; Desktop, Android, IOS, Web browsers, and Windows. Application tests can be manual, scripted, and even recorded by using keyword-driven or data-driven functionality. There are even additional options for error reporting and automated playback. The object repository is extremely accurate and is fully customizable. TestComplete can easily be used by experienced developers and even by manual novice testers to develop quality automated UI tests quickly.

    TestComplete offers three different testing scenarios:

    • Desktop: Users can easily and quickly automate UI tests using today’s most popular desktop applications, such as; Windows, Java, Python,.Net, VBScript, and more.

    • Web: Users can effortlessly create renewable tests for all of today’s popular web applications, including JavaScript frameworks on 2000+ trusted browser and platform integrations.

    • Mobile: Users can safely build and automate serviceable UI tests on actual or virtual android or IOS devices, locally or in the cloud. Users can create code or codeless tests. TestComplete seamlessly integrates with many of today’s popular frameworks.

    Key Features

    • Easily create automated UI tests: TestComplete offers scriptless Record and Replay or simple keyword-driven tests to quickly develop any type of UI test users may require. Tests can be recorded once, then replayed when needed across various applications on mobile, web, or desktop environments. TestComplete integrates with many different languages, such as Java, Python, C+, and more.

    • Keyword driven tests: Users can easily divide testing steps, actions, objects, and data with an integrated keyword-driven test structure. This makes it easy for every user to participate in the test automation process; there is no programming experience needed. Everything is made simple with easy-to-use point-and-click options.

    • Data driven tests: Easily distinguish data from test commands to keep administrative efforts simple. Users can improve overall coverage by running various automated mobile, desktop, or web UI tests.

    • Record and Replay: Users can reuse created automated tests across every environment as often as desired. This helps to expand overall test coverage and represents a huge cost and time savings.

    Reviews from Real Users

    Sandhiya T S., Sr Solutions Engineer at Lexington Soft, relates, “The record and replay aspects of the solution are quite useful for people. With them, you don't have to write any scripts. Basically, you can record your actions and play them back later. The initial setup is also very easy.”

    Sai S R., Staff Test Architect at a tech services company, says, "The most valuable features of the SmartBear TestComplete are self-healing, they reduce the maintenance required. The different languages SmartBear TestComplete supports are good because some of our libraries are written in Python, JavaScript, and C#. It's very easy to put them all under one project and use them."

    Sample Customers
    John Lewis, SEED Infotech, Bajaj Allianz, TMNAS, Hexaware, Brewin Dolphin, A U.S. bank
    Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
    Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
    Top Industries
    No Data Available
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    Government6%
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company31%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company19%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    Financial Services Firm11%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    No Data Available
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise75%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business28%
    Midsize Enterprise28%
    Large Enterprise45%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business24%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise62%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    769,599 professionals have used our research since 2012.