We performed a comparison between HeadSpin and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Mobile App Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The technical support is really helpful because we can set up direct calls with them if we want to. We can use Zoom or Google Meet to interact with them directly, and if there is an issue in our system, they will help us by reproducing the issue in their machines and trying to figure out a solution. The support is really smooth, and we like that they're very supportive."
"It has an interesting feature called AV box testing. A lot of companies that are in the OTT segment don't really understand what their streaming is like. They can't test for streaming quality. There are restrictions where you cannot simulate live streaming. For example, on Netflix, you can't simulate how a movie is being streamed on a remote device. That's why HeadSpin has got this AV box testing feature. It is a patented feature. They send an AV box to your location, and you can test live streaming, which is something that no other company does."
"The initial setup of HeadSpin was very easy and user-friendly. It was easy to configure and write a script."
"The most valuable features of the product are the performance parameters it gives us."
"The most valuable feature is that this is the first connected intelligence all-in-one platform."
"The most valuable feature of HeadSpin it's the integration with other solutions. It is great. I can search for an element or do a quick debugging on the application right on HeadSpin. It's very useful."
"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."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"It's simple to set up."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"If you want to do some testing or check the devices manually or check the application in a particular device manually, it is really laggy. That's a disappointment because sometimes we would like to do manual testing when our local devices are not available."
"HeadSpin needs to improve the hardware. With the mobile, the battery life reduces and must be continuously charged."
"HeadSpin could improve on the user interface because it is very poor. The checks that are done on the iOS devices are very difficult, but for Android, it runs great. For all iOS devices, the user interface and how it interacts with the device are very poor."
"Sometimes, devices go offline and some features are not functioning on some devices, specifically on iOS."
"Support and pricing could be improved."
"They should automate their onboarding. A lot of things are still manual. They can create a video assistant or something like that to completely automate the entire process."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
HeadSpin is ranked 7th in Mobile App Testing Tools with 6 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Mobile App Testing Tools with 89 reviews. HeadSpin is rated 8.0, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of HeadSpin writes "It fulfills everything from automation to manual performance". 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". HeadSpin is most compared with Perfecto, Sauce Labs, BrowserStack, pCloudy and Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite. See our HeadSpin vs. OpenText UFT One report.
See our list of best Mobile App Testing Tools vendors and best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Mobile App Testing 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.
