We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Postman based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"It's user-friendly. Anybody can learn it within five to seven minutes."
"The interface and the different types of API methods you can use are the most valuable aspects of this solution."
"This solution offers a free version."
"The solution is stable."
"It is easy and simple to use and install. It is compatible with Linux, Mac or Windows."
"The scalability is good."
"The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. Postman can be used as an extension in Google Chrome for those who do not wish to install it directly. Deployment took an hour and a half."
"It helps me to test APIs independently. It also supports hosting."
"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."
"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."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"Integration should be improved with our continuation system because we use Azure DevOps separately."
"Postman does not have a check-in balance. Essentially what I mean by that is if there is something that is already configured on a particular device, it just overrides it without checking whether you really want to override it or not."
"I would like that if you click on one of the fields you should be able to see the entire row of fields, names, and values."
"The reporting could be better. It should give you a detailed PDF report after you run a test."
"It should be able to check the records and compare them to the regression testing more on the automation side."
"If they could implement auto-validations and assertions from SoapUI, that would be a very good feature."
"I have display issues in my Windows that need to be fixed."
"I rate the support for Postman a four out of five."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 4th in API Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Postman is ranked 1st in API Testing Tools with 52 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Postman is rated 8.2. 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 Postman writes "Reliable and easy to expand with a helpful API network". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Oracle Application Testing Suite, whereas Postman is most compared with Apache JMeter, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and Runscope. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Postman report.
See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all API 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.
