We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Oracle Application Testing Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."
"The function test feature is valuable."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"OpenScript has many features that make it useful, including the ability to record and playback."
"I like the functional testing. There's a product inside OATS called OLT, Oracle Load Testing. You can do the load testing without depending on any other tool"
"The graphics are very intuitive and it's very easy to get scale of development."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite's most valuable feature is it works very smoothly with all Oracle Java-based applications."
"User friendly UI / Tree view to work with adding steps."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"Lacks patches for new OS systems and doesn't work on a Mac."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
More Oracle Application Testing Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Oracle Application Testing Suite is ranked 13th in Functional Testing Tools with 24 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Oracle Application Testing Suite is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Application Testing Suite writes "Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive, whereas Oracle Application Testing Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio, Apache JMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Cloud. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.
