OpenText UFT One vs SmartBear TestLeft comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
OpenText Logo
11,332 views|6,976 comparisons
87% willing to recommend
SmartBear Logo
374 views|315 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and SmartBear TestLeft based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: April 2024).
768,578 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
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator.""The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great.""UFT has improved our ability to regression test.""With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources.""The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP).""The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner.""It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting.""This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."

More OpenText UFT One Pros →

"The most valuable features are test executor and development."

More SmartBear TestLeft Pros →

Cons
"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.""The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features.""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 solution does not have proper scripting.""They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost.""The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script.""Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification.""Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

More OpenText UFT One Cons →

"TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved."

More SmartBear TestLeft 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 →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    768,578 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 »
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Ranking
    2nd
    Views
    11,332
    Comparisons
    6,976
    Reviews
    20
    Average Words per Review
    694
    Rating
    7.9
    32nd
    Views
    374
    Comparisons
    315
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    Learn More
    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
    SmartBear TestLeft a functional testing tool fully embedded in standard IDEs. TestLeft is a powerful yet lean functional testing tool for dev-testers working in Agile teams. It fully embeds into standard development IDEs. A built-in access to object and method library is also available with TestLeft. Dev-testers can thereby easily and quickly create robust functional automated tests without leaving their favorite IDEs such as Visual Studio. It also works well with other tools in dev eco-systems such as source control or continuous integration systems.
    Sample Customers
    Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
    American Red Cross, CISCO, HONDA, ADIDAS, TBC bank
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    Government6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company33%
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    Retailer6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise75%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise26%
    Large Enterprise51%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while SmartBear TestLeft is ranked 32nd in Functional Testing Tools. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestLeft is rated 7.0. 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 SmartBear TestLeft writes "Simple to set up and the test execute feature is helpful, but the cost could be reduced". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas SmartBear TestLeft is most compared with SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis Tosca.

    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.