We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Regression Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"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."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"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."
"The solution is expensive."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
"TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"I didn't use it very heavily. One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete. We have a lot of such scripts in our organization, and it would be very useful to have some option to easily move these scripts. It is currently possible to convert these scripts to TestComplete, but it is not easy. I have to write some code, but everything is not available immediately."
"Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Regression Testing Tools with 89 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 6th in Regression Testing Tools with 70 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, UiPath Test Suite and Ranorex Studio, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, froglogic Squish and Eggplant Test. See our OpenText UFT One vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation 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.