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."The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"Integrates well with other products."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"OpenScript has many features that make it useful, including the ability to record and playback."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"We like that we don't need a separate management tool. This is a good feature. It also has an inbuilt performance tool which is on Flash. It has very good record and playback feature as well. The inspection tool is also very good. Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"We do not need a separate test management tool because we have there is a management tool. That is a very good feature. Secondly, it has an inbuilt performance testing tool, which is on flash. It has very good record and playback features as well. And apart from that, there is a good inspection feature. Since it comes with all of the packages, it's very good."
"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 function test feature is valuable."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"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."
"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."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite does encounter some lag. When I am trying to record something, the tool gets stuck."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
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 Selenium HQ, whereas Oracle Application Testing Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One, Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio 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.
