We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Testim 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 initial setup is relatively easy."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"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."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"The product is easy to use."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"The solution is expensive."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"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."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Testim is rated 9.2. 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 Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Applitools and Testsigma. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Testim report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation 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.
