We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One, SmartBear TestComplete, and Worksoft Certify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
"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."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"It is a stable solution."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"People who don't have coding knowledge are capable of doing automation with Certify. It reduces coding and scripting dependencies."
"What I found most valuable in Worksoft Certify is its identification feature. I also found its automation feature valuable."
"With Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automate quickly and to maintain and update scripts."
"We are now trying to automate all our applications: SAP, web, third-party, and legacy. Instead of multiple tools, we have been able to have Worksoft handle a lot of our applications. This has saved us a lot of time and effort."
"The most valuable features of Worksoft Certify are the way we can maintain the processes and sub-processes inside. We can immediately identify and replicate multiple objects in the application without having a major issue with it. We are able to do a lot of operations even with the solution being completely scriptless. That is a large advantage compared with other automation tools."
"The turn around time for getting the automation tester familiarized with the tool is very quick, as it doesn't have any coding. It is fairly simple to understand."
"A specific feature that I found to be the most valuable in the solution for our company's work processes stems from the fact that it is useful as a low-code automation tool."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"As part of our weekly regression, we wanted to use Execution Manager. However, from 2017 until March 2021, Execution Manager was not working as expected in our enrollment. It could have been better. If Execution Manager had worked well, then we could have doubled our productivity. Unfortunately, it had problems."
"One feature that we have been asking for has been to treat tests as code and store the source code for tests in a configuration management tool. Right now, for version control of testing, it's all internally within the tool. If we have a test of a business process and want to revive that test, our methodology now is purely manual work. We go into the tool, create a copy of the existing test, and call the next one: v2. Now, we have two of them and the only way you can tell them apart is by its naming convention."
"The stability needs help. This is main thing that needs help, and if it's not the stability, then it's Worksoft's ability to respond to issues."
"Technical support's first response to us is usually late."
"For Execution Manager, I would like it to be more robust interface and be able to view the remote machines full screen instead of a little window."
"They have a scheduler in Execution Manager, but it is not customizable. Its UI needs a lot of improvement. The lights-out testing is a bit difficult with that particular tool, and it needs a lot of improvement. Of course, there are so many integration options with Worksoft for execution, but when it comes to Execution Manager, which is their own tool, there is a lot of scope for improvement."
"When it is unstable, there will be times when a test that we are running in Certify will just stop, and it will say, "Aborted." There will be errors. There will be no explanation as to why it happens. It has now happened maybe one out of 20 times. When it happens, I just tell our QA team to stop Certify and restart it, hoping we don't see it again."
"We have had run ins with some bugs on Business Process Procedure (BPP) and Execution Manager."
