We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One, Selenium HQ, and Tricentis Flood based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"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."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"It is a stable solution."
"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 production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"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 should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"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."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"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."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"In the beginning, we had issues with several test cases failing during regression. Over a period of time, we built our own framework around Selenium which helped us overcome of these issues."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"We used an implementation strategy to deploy the solution, not because of the tools, but mainly because of the scripting part of the tool."