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.
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"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 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."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"It is very stable."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"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."
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 OpenText UFT Digital Lab, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Ranorex Studio. 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.
