OpenText UFT One vs Selenium HQ comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
OpenText Logo
11,757 views|7,234 comparisons
SeleniumHQ Logo
5,363 views|4,586 comparisons
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Selenium HQ 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.
To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT One vs. Selenium HQ Report (Updated: March 2024).
765,234 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
"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.""The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments.""The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier.""The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent.""Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier.""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.""The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."

More OpenText UFT One Pros →

"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good.""The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined.""It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website.""It's not too complicated to implement.""In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature.""Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts.""You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution.""The stability and performance are good."

More Selenium HQ Pros →

Cons
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all.""[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution.""It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower.""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.""The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script.""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.""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."

More OpenText UFT One Cons →

"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing.""Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear.""I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard.""I would like to see automatic logs generated.""I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more.""Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%.""Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code.""I would like to see some reporting or test management tools."

More Selenium HQ Cons →

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 →

  • "It is free to use."
  • "There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
  • "It's open-source, so there's no need to pay for a license."
  • "Since it is an open source. It is free to use. However my company see it as the future of load testing."
  • "It is free."
  • "This product is open source and free. That was a huge deciding factor for us getting into it."
  • "We are satisfied with the pricing."
  • "It's an open-source tool that you can work with at any time without any cost."
  • More Selenium HQ Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    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 »
    Top Answer:Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate… more »
    Top Answer:Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
    Ranking
    2nd
    Views
    11,757
    Comparisons
    7,234
    Reviews
    20
    Average Words per Review
    694
    Rating
    7.9
    4th
    Views
    5,363
    Comparisons
    4,586
    Reviews
    33
    Average Words per Review
    410
    Rating
    8.1
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    SeleniumHQ
    Learn More
    SeleniumHQ
    Video Not Available
    Overview
    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

    Selenium HQ is an umbrella project that includes a number of tools and frameworks that allow for web browser automation. In particular, Selenium offers a framework for the W3C WebDriver specification, a platform- and language-neutral coding interface that works with all of the main web browsers.

    Selenium is a toolset for automating web browsers that uses the best methods available to remotely control browser instances and simulate a user's interaction with the browser. It enables users to mimic typical end-user actions, such as typing text into forms, choosing options from drop-down menus, checking boxes, and clicking links in documents. Additionally, it offers a wide range of other controls, including mouse movement, arbitrary JavaScript execution, and much more.

    Although Selenium HQ is generally used for front-end website testing, it is also a browser user agent library. The interfaces are universal in their use, which enables composition with other libraries to serve your purpose.

    The source code for Selenium is accessible under the Apache 2.0 license. The project is made possible by volunteers who have kindly committed hundreds of hours to the development and maintenance of the code.

    Selenium HQ Tools

    These three main Selenium HQ tools have powerful capabilities:

    • WebDriver: If you are just starting out with desktop or mobile website test automation, you will be using WebDriver APIs. WebDriver controls the browser and executes tests using the automation APIs that browser vendors provide. This gives the impression that a real person is using the browser. Because WebDriver's API does not need to be compiled alongside application code, it is not intrusive. As a result, you can test the same application that you push live.

    • IDE: Develop your Selenium test cases using an IDE (integrated development environment). The most effective way to create test cases is to utilize this simple Chrome and Firefox extension. IDE uses Selenium commands that are already in use to record user activity in the browser with parameters set by the context of the element. This is an excellent approach to learning Selenium script syntax and will save you time.

    • Grid: You can run test cases on several machines and operating systems with Selenium Grid. The local end controls how the test cases are triggered, and the remote end automatically runs the test cases after they are triggered.

    Reviews from Real Users

    Selenium HQ stands out among its competitors for a number of reasons. Two major ones are its driver interface and its speed. PeerSpot users take note of the advantages of these features in their reviews:


    Avijit B., an automation tester at a tech services company, writes of the solution, “The driver interface is really useful. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application.”

    Another PeerSpot reviewer, a software engineer at a financial services firm, notes, “Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."

    Sample Customers
    Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
    BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    Government7%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm25%
    Computer Software Company22%
    Retailer10%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company16%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Manufacturing Company8%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise75%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business30%
    Midsize Enterprise27%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise68%
    Buyer's Guide
    OpenText UFT One vs. Selenium HQ
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT One vs. Selenium HQ and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Postman, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Telerik Test Studio, Worksoft Certify, Tricentis Tosca and Automation Anywhere (AA). See our OpenText UFT One vs. Selenium HQ report.

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