We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and SonarQube based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"It's a great product. If you are in a hurry and just want to focus on the functional requirements of any kind of project, SonarQube is highly helpful. It enables the developers to code securely. SonarQube has a Community edition, which is open source and free. There are also three proprietary or paid versions: Enterprise edition, Data Center edition, and Developer edition."
"This solution has the capability to analyze source code in almost all the languages in the market."
"Code Convention: Using the tool to implement some sort of coding convention is really useful and ensures that the code is consistent no matter how many contributors."
"I am only interested in the security features in SonarQube. There are plenty of features other features, such as test coverage, code anomalies, and pointer access are handled by the business logic teams. They get the reports and they have to fix them in JIRA or Bugzilla."
"The static code analysis of the solution is the most important aspect for us. When it comes to security breaches within the code, we can leverage some rules to allow us to identify the repetition in our code and the possible targets that we may have. It makes it very easy to review our code for security purposes."
"The product itself has a friendly UI."
"All the features of the solution are quite good."
"SonarQube is good for checking and maintaining code quality."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"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."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"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."
"A robust credential scanner would be a huge bonus as it would remove the need for yet another niche product."
"I have found this solution creates more noise than competitors."
"The scanning part could be improved in SonarQube. We have used Coverity for scanning, and we have the critical issues reported by Coverity. When we used SonarQube for scanning and looked at the results, it seems that some of them have incorrect input. This part can be improved for C and C++ languages."
"The software testing tool capability could improve. It does not always integrate well. You have to use a specific plugin and the plugin does not always go in Apple's applications."
"I would like to see dynamic code analysis in the next version of the software."
"The solution could improve the management reports by making them easier to understand for the technical team that needs to review them."
"The product must improve security analysis."
"The reporting is good, but I am not able to download a specific report as a PDF, so downloading reports is something that should be looked at."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 108 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while SonarQube 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 SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Snyk.
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.
