IBM Rational Functional Tester vs OpenText UFT One comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
IBM Logo
1,111 views|638 comparisons
88% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
8,499 views|5,253 comparisons
87% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Functional Tester and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Regression Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Regression Testing Tools Report (Updated: April 2024).
768,857 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual.""It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good.""The most valuable feature is the UI component tester.""Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."

More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pros →

"The initial setup is relatively easy.""UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support.""The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols.""We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution.""The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation.""It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people.""The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier.""It offers a wide range of testing."

More OpenText UFT One Pros →

Cons
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run.""They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool.""As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support.""If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."

More IBM Rational Functional Tester Cons →

"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.""UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts.""Technical support could be improved.""Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field.""One area for improvement is its occasional slowness.""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.""Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification.""One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."

More OpenText UFT One Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."
  • More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
  • "The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
  • "It's an expensive solution."
  • "For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
  • "The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
  • "The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
  • "The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
  • "The price is one aspect that could be improved."
  • More OpenText UFT One Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    768,857 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time.
    Top Answer:The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to… more »
    Top Answer:The solution is used for test automation, and test data creation.
    Top Answer:We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well… more »
    Top Answer:My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
    Top Answer: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… more »
    Ranking
    10th
    Views
    1,111
    Comparisons
    638
    Reviews
    1
    Average Words per Review
    225
    Rating
    8.0
    2nd
    Views
    8,499
    Comparisons
    5,253
    Reviews
    20
    Average Words per Review
    694
    Rating
    7.9
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Rational Functional Tester
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    Learn More
    Overview
    IBM Rational Functional Tester is an automated functional testing and regression testing tool. This software provides automated testing capabilities for functional, regression, GUI, and data-driven testing. Rational Function Tester supports a range of applications, such as web-based, .Net, Java, Siebel, SAP, terminal emulator-based applications, PowerBuilder, Ajax, Adobe Flex, Dojo Toolkit, GEF, Adobe PDF documents, zSeries, iSeries, and pSeries.
    Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications. Read white paper
    Sample Customers
    Edumate
    Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company22%
    Financial Services Firm18%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    Insurance Company6%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    Government6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business11%
    Midsize Enterprise33%
    Large Enterprise56%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise68%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise75%
    Buyer's Guide
    Regression Testing Tools
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Regression Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    768,857 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 10th in Regression Testing Tools with 8 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Regression Testing Tools with 89 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.2, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". 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". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Selenium HQ, Katalon Studio, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca and Ranorex Studio, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite.

    See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors and best Functional Testing Tools vendors.

    We monitor all Regression 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.