We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Tools."The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is scanning QR codes."
"It provides a better integration for our ecosystem."
"This is a stable solution."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The solution is easy to install. I would rate the product's setup between six to seven out of ten. The deployment time depends on the applications that need to be scanned. We have a development and operations team to take care of the product's maintenance."
"It's generally a very user-friendly tool. Anyone can easily learn how to scan"
"It identifies all the URLs and domains on its own and then performs tests and provides the results."
"For me, as a manager, it was the ease of use. Inserting security into the development process is not normally an easy project to do. The ability for the developer to actually use it and get results and focuses, that's what counted."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"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."
"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."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"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."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"We have experienced challenges when trying to integrate this solution with other products. When you compare it with the other SecOps products, the quality of the output is too low. It is not a new-age product. It is very outdated."
"The product has some technical limitations."
"There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost. "
"Many silly false positives are produced."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"We would like to integrate with some of the other reporting tools that we're planning to use in the future."
"Visibility is an issue for us. Our partners do not know we have integrations with some of IBM products."
"One thing which I think can be improved is the CI/CD Integration"
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"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."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"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."
HCL AppScan is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 39 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.6, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes " A stable and scalable product useful for application security scanning". On the other hand, 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". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, Checkmarx One and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite.
We monitor all Application Security 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.
