Micro Focus UFT One Review
Is it sane to compare Selenium with QTP?
have seen many articles which compare Selenium (1 or 2) with QTP (or
other commercial tools). But these articles miss very basic point that
Selenium is a library available in variety of language while QTP has
entire gamut of tools with it. So if you were to really compare QTP with
Selenium then comparison should be based on the library of languages
which is offered either of these tools, which in my opinion Selenium
wins outright over QTP.
My only intention of writing this post is not claim Selenium victory of
QTP but to demonstrate how badly Selenium is compared with QTP at times.
There might be things QTP would be good at doing (I left QTP long ago
hence can not name any) but to disregard Selenium on the factors I
listed herein is highly biased.
- Sure, you have QTP recorder which does it for you but don't forget
that you can test object locator using Selenium IDE and it is not
limited to using only Selenium IDE. Firebug with Firefox can be used for
same while Chrome has built in development tool bar to test element
locator. In case you don't know you can use $$("cssLocator") to test css
locator and $x("xpathLocator") to test xPath in both FF and chrome to
test application objects. Can you use QTP to test object locators in FF
- So QTP comes in with built-in editor and Selenium is defeated in this
aspect. Is it? Given the variety of languages Selenium can be used
with, you have far greater language editor options with Selenium than
with QTP. You have umpteen options with editors like Intellij, Eclipse,
Visual Studio than the one available with QTP. When I was working with
QTP I could not even conveniently rename test methods spanning across
multiple files. Such re factoring is child's play with professional
editors you use with Selenium
- This is one of the biggest cheat point of QTP. Add recovery scenarios
and tool takes care of working around the update windows. First of all
if you add recovery scenario then it slows down the speed of test
execution as there would be one listener always looking for such events,
which means more recovery scenario and be ready for more slower test
execution. Why should you bother about those automatic update windows in
your test environment? Should not you proof your test environment
against such update windows? If it is windows or FF then disable
automatic updates. And best if you can not manage your test environment
then out source it to some else like - Sauce Labs or Testing Bot
Testing non browser applications - Well, when did Selenium claim that it can tests window based applications. Selenium is browser automation framework. Comparing Selenium and QTP on this front is like comparing apples with oranges.
Great object Repository of QTP
- So QTP can store objects in an external location, all you need to do
is to update object repo when your object location changes. And then you
find that the easiest way to port QTP scripts from one machine to
another is to use Descriptive Programming which indeed means that you
should do away with your beloved object repository of QTP. Now coming to
absence of object repository mechanism in Selenium. Have you heard of
properties files or Page Factory
and guess what, you you don't have to do away with any thing to be able
to port your Selenium tests from one machine to another.
No built-in Report with Selenium
- QTP generates nice test reports and with Selenium - none. Really?
When you pick up a language for Selenium you would be using a framework
in that language and most probably the framework will provide you the
reporting capabilities. For example there is ant task to generate test
report in JUnit while TestNG has buit-in reporting mechanism. Google it
and you would find similar options in language of your choice.
QTP and QC integration-
You bought QTP for test automation now buy QC for test management. What
with Selenium Test Management tools. None. There are indeed options - xStudio
is one good option for small Selenium teams looking for test management
with out spending any extra money. And their commercial options are
cheaper than QC. If you are looking to port your test results to Test
Management tool then TestLink might be worth a try. In this case you don't have to pay at all.
**Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Last updated: Nov 11 2013
More Micro Focus UFT One reviews from users
Learn what your peers think about Micro Focus UFT One. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: February 2021.
464,857 professionals have used our research since 2012.