TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management vs. OpenText UFT One

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management

    Score5 out of 10
    N/AIBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is an end-to-end engineering solution used to manage system requirements to design, workflow, and test management, extending the functionality of ALM tools for better complex-systems development.N/A

    OpenText UFT One

    Score8 out of 10
    N/AUnified 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
    IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementOpenText UFT One
    Editions & Modules
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementOpenText 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
    Community Pulse
    IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementOpenText UFT One
    Considered Both Products
    IBM
    No answer on this topic
    OpenText
    No answer on this topic
    Key User Insights
    Would buy again
    78%
    Would buy again
    7 Answers
    No answers on this topic
    Delivers good value for the price
    88%
    Delivers good value for the price
    7 Answers
    No answers on this topic
    Happy with the feature set
    89%
    Happy with the feature set
    8 Answers
    No answers on this topic
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    100%
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    5 Answers
    No answers on this topic
    Implementation went as expected
    86%
    Implementation went as expected
    6 Answers
    No answers on this topic
    Best Alternatives
    IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementOpenText UFT One
    Small Businesses
    No answers on this topic
    TestComplete
    Score8 out of 10
    Medium-sized Companies
    Jama Connect
    Score8.7 out of 10
    ReadyAPI
    Score6.1 out of 10
    Enterprises
    Jama Connect
    Score8.7 out of 10
    SoapUI Open Source
    Score8.3 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementOpenText UFT One
    Likelihood to Recommend
    3.0
    (22 ratings)
    8.0
    (12 ratings)
    Likelihood to Renew
    8.0
    (6 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    Usability
    4.0
    (5 ratings)
    7.0
    (1 ratings)
    Support Rating
    5.0
    (3 ratings)
    8.0
    (1 ratings)
    Implementation Rating
    10.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementOpenText UFT One
    Likelihood to Recommend
    IBM
    The software is robust enough to handle highly complex software development or other product development and can be used well beyond the range to do what a client needs. However, because of the inability to hold its users to proper best practices, things can get wildly out of hand and cascade over the years, creating unnecessary technical debt. The system has a lot of usable features, but they don't funnel users toward the correct processes and practices.
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Pros
    IBM
    • Open Services supporting Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC).
    • Required definition management and managed capabilities enabling.
    • Rational DOORS Web Access for local on the test field presence.
    • On-sites established reporting system.
    • Approved linking requirements to test plans
    • Engineering Requirements Management DOORS traces requirements thereby eliminates manually processes and spreadsheets, for improved productivity.
    • Returns the investment efficiently.
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Cons
    IBM
    • I feel like it is too heavy sometimes and updating is not very straight forward. For example, if I want to change an incident ticket (IN) to a service request (SR) and add some comment for the change, I have to first change the IN to SR, then click refresh which takes a few seconds, then add a comment. If I forget the refresh step, my comment will be discarded without warning like my ticket is not in the latest status. This also happens when somebody else changes the ticket during my edit as I can not lock the ticket exclusively.
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Likelihood to Renew
    IBM
    At the moment we are required by contract to continue to use the IBM DOORS software for our current client. Given that it can be expensive, if we were to use it after our current client's needs were met, we would have to secure other projects in order to justify the continued use of the software.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    OpenText
    No answers on this topic
    Usability
    IBM
    The UI is terrible and not intuitive. Users need training in order to complete tasks. Much like SAP, it's not the clearest tool. The tracing feature is especially complicated because you must write the scripts yourself. There is a learning curve. Also, even the setup, installation, and logging in each time takes a considerable amount of time.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    OpenText
    The ui is clean but there are lots of setting snd options which one must be fully aware so it will aid him/her during scripting
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Support Rating
    IBM
    It does a basic job and has the potential to complete some robust reporting tasks, however, it really is a clunky piece of software with a terrible user interface that makes using it routinely quite unpleasant. Many of our legacy and maintenance projects still use DOORS but our department and company use many alternatives and are looking for better tools.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Implementation Rating
    IBM
    No problems
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    OpenText
    No answers on this topic
    Alternatives Considered
    IBM
    It was easier to do all the change management-related activities, even configurations were handled very effectively. New process definitions and initiatives made it easier for better project deliverables. Effective resource allocations and better reporting and defect management. The overall cost of the tool is great too and well within budget.
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Return on Investment
    IBM
    • It's part of CLM suite so it can be used to manage the whole lifecycle with tight integration with development module (Rational Team Concert) and quality module (Rational Quality Manager).
    • Comprehensive reports and dashboards provide better visibility.
    • License cost is on higher side.
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    ScreenShots