FitNesse vs. OpenText UFT One

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
FitNesse
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
FitNesse is an open source fully integrated standalone wiki web server and acceptance testing framework.N/A
OpenText UFT One
Score 7.8 out of 10
N/A
Unified Functional Testing (UFT, formerly known as HP UFT and before that QuickTest Professional or HP QTP) is a functional and performance testing tool acquired by Micro Focus from Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, now from OpenText.N/A
Pricing
FitNesseOpenText UFT One
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
FitNesseOpenText UFT One
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Best Alternatives
FitNesseOpenText UFT One
Small Businesses
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.3 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.3 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 8.1 out of 10
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 8.1 out of 10
Enterprises
ignio AIOps
ignio AIOps
Score 8.1 out of 10
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 8.1 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
FitNesseOpenText UFT One
Likelihood to Recommend
8.5
(3 ratings)
8.9
(11 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
FitNesseOpenText UFT One
Likelihood to Recommend
Open Source
Useful and straightforward. Appian and other low-code BCM tools can be easily integrated. Writing a script for a test is similar to writing a script in English. So simple to use because it's a wrapper class for selenium. FitNesse is being implemented with the goal of doing it correctly the first time. As a result, migrations of both the client and the server are made easier.
Read full review
OpenText
UFT is well suited if the price is not an issue, and if the requirement is about testing different technologies. If the application is based on Legacy platforms like Siebel or Mainframe, UFT fares quite well. For low cost web-based projects, there are other cheap and open source tools available. If it is about API testing or Mobile Testing, it is better to use other tools like TOSCA.
Read full review
Pros
Open Source
  • Easy to install.
  • Command language is easy to create custom scripts.
  • FitNesse tests are deterministic.
Read full review
OpenText
  • The simple front end will allow novice users to easily grasp the basics of automation and give them confidence to try things for themselves.
  • UFT can scale up and run across multiple machines from a single controller, such as ALM, enabling hundreds of tests to be executed overnight.
  • There is an active support community out there, both official HPE based and independent users. This means if you do encounter a problem there is always someone out there to help you.
  • The later versions have many add-ins to plug in to other tools within the QA world.
  • Expert users are able to utilise the many native functions and also build their own to get the most out of the tool and impress people as they walk past and see the magic happening on the screen.
  • UFT also has LeanFT bundled with it, allowing automated testing at the api level - if you can convince the developers to let you in there.
Read full review
Cons
Open Source
  • Logging can help any debug or error issues.
  • A Java/Selenium developer is needed to maintain the FitNesse keyword library.
  • Content.txt and properties.txted need to be added to the test suite in older versions to make it visible in a test run.
Read full review
OpenText
  • Its licensing cost is very high making it a very expensive tool. due to this many organisations are exploring options of license free tools like Selenium for automation. Though learning curve is large in case of Selenium but it is very cost effective & you an get lot of support online for Selenium.
  • Though the scripting time is less since its easy to create automation scripts, the execution time is relatively higher as it takes the lot of CPU & RAM.
  • Though UFT is quite stable but during long execution cycles we do get frequent browser crashing issues.
  • In terms of costing TestComplete is also one option which is not free but comes with modular pricing. You can buy what you need, when you need.
Read full review
Support Rating
Open Source
No answers on this topic
OpenText
HPE are quick to reply and it's possible to get through to the actual developers shuold the case warrent it. Their online system allows updates and tracking of all incedents raised.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Open Source
The FitNesse testing automation framework is very simple to operate. It is simple to connect with the Jenkins and Bamboo environments. It is dependable, and it is simple and quick to include new tests. The process of debugging and fixing test failures is straightforward. FitNesse, including its installation, may be utilized with a minimum of fuss and difficulty. Maintaining scripts and monitoring their output is designed to be a relatively straightforward process.
Read full review
OpenText
1. It works solid for automate SAP and S/4 Hana applications and Fiori too. 2. Teams are well versed about UFT One 3. Able to handle maintained execution results 4. Publish Automation execution results in well manner to the leadership team/stake holders 5. More help content available 6. Able to understand non technical resources about normal view.
Read full review
Return on Investment
Open Source
  • It does not necessitate any further setup or configuration.
  • FitNess is an easy-to-use manual QA tool with a comprehensive report that aids stakeholders in better understanding the tested applications.
  • Automated testing suites for a wide range of websites. In addition, it is quite beneficial for the ongoing maintenance of the test library.
Read full review
OpenText
  • Reduces the total workload of keeping the team to test older (regression) functionality. QA testers can concentrate on ad-hoc and exploratory testing, saving time and effort across the entire project.
  • Has built a better infrastructure for the client applications on which we can rely on for stability and providing regression results for any new features being developed.
  • Led the applications a step closer to implementing agile practices and DevOps across the entire organization. Thus, providing a better turnaround time of new features to the customers and less maintenance headaches for the BAU team to address.
Read full review
ScreenShots