OpenText UFT One vs. TestMu AI

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
OpenText UFT One
Score 8.0 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
TestMu AI
Score 8.9 out of 10
Mid-Size Companies (51-1,000 employees)
TestMu AI (Formerly LambdaTest) is a Full Stack Agentic AI Quality Engineering platform that uses end-to-end AI agents to plan, author, execute, and analyze software quality. The platform enables testing of web, mobile, and enterprise applications at any scale across real devices, real browsers, and custom real-world environments.
$19
per month per user
Pricing
OpenText UFT OneTestMu AI
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Live
$19
per month Parallel Test
Real Device (Includes Live)
$35
per month Parallel Test
Web & Mobile Browser Automation
$119
per month Parallel Test
Native App Automation
$149
per month Parallel Test
Web & Mobile Browser on Real Device
$158
per month Parallel Test
HyperExecute Cloud (Multi OS)
$199
per month Parallel Test
SmartUI Visual Regression
$219
per month Parallel Test
Enterprise
Custom Pricing
Parallel Test
HyperExecute On-Premise
Custom Pricing
per parallel test
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
OpenText UFT OneTestMu AI
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsDiscount available for annual pricing.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
OpenText UFT OneTestMu AI
Best Alternatives
OpenText UFT OneTestMu AI
Small Businesses
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.5 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.5 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 6.3 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.5 out of 10
Enterprises
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 6.3 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.5 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
OpenText UFT OneTestMu AI
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(12 ratings)
9.1
(110 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
8.7
(7 ratings)
Usability
7.0
(1 ratings)
9.2
(62 ratings)
Availability
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
Support Rating
8.0
(1 ratings)
10.0
(7 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(2 ratings)
Configurability
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
Contract Terms and Pricing Model
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
Ease of integration
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
Product Scalability
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
Vendor post-sale
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
Vendor pre-sale
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
OpenText UFT OneTestMu AI
Likelihood to Recommend
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
LambdaTest Inc.
One day, I needed to test a specific issue that was occurring only on Pixel phones. I turned to LambdaTest, quickly identified the problem, and was able to fix it. There hasn't been a situation where I felt LambdaTest didn't help, it's my go-to solution for testing, as it solves many problems.
Read full review
Pros
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
LambdaTest Inc.
  • Very accessible as multiple users can be added in each subscription
  • Very reliable as it is very close to the actual device when it comes to operating system and version behavior
  • There are a lot of options for devices and browsers that users can choose from when it comes to emulating and testing
Read full review
Cons
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
LambdaTest Inc.
  • More real devices should be added like I have Samsung mobile but it was not in the list
  • It takes time in checking the link on LambdaTest if we compare with real mobiles
  • Sometimes exact results are not matching as from real mobiles
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
OpenText
No answers on this topic
LambdaTest Inc.
The reason i have given the 10 points becasue the problem LambdaTest solves is providing access to all devices in one place, allowing developers to identify the same errors they would encounter on real devices. This makes life much easier, especially for developers who regularly face cross-device functionality issues. It's a big plus point that positions LambdaTest as an all-in-one solution.
Read full review
Usability
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
Read full review
LambdaTest Inc.
Because of the ease of use of the platform, we just save a lot of time and effort with this as its a feature rich solution, we just need to upload app binary once and for everytime we need to test on a different device we can just directly install that binary on the device without the pain of reupload.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
OpenText
No answers on this topic
LambdaTest Inc.
yes always available
Read full review
Performance
OpenText
No answers on this topic
LambdaTest Inc.
haven't found any glitch while using this
Read full review
Support Rating
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
LambdaTest Inc.
The customer support team is very active and cooperative. Once, I contacted them in their off timings because of an issue, I got an instant reply from the executive and he resolved the issue very efficiently. This is why we have been using LambdaTest for more than two years. It is best suited for us.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
OpenText
No answers on this topic
LambdaTest Inc.
Implementation of Lambdatest was very easy for different project requirements.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
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
LambdaTest Inc.
While BrowserStack is also a well-established platform, we found LambdaTest to offer similar and even better features at reasonable pricing. LambdaTest is more cost-effective than BrowserStack. LambdaTest provides a free forever plan, while BrowserStack does not. Even manual testing plans are better priced than BrowserStack’s. In terms of UI and onboarding, we found LambdaTest more user-friendly as well.
Read full review
Scalability
OpenText
No answers on this topic
LambdaTest Inc.
not all department, but we're using for our clients
Read full review
Return on Investment
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
LambdaTest Inc.
  • Automation testing has a bit of a learning curve
  • Lack of real device keep that bug in your head if not on the website.
  • Need to wait for a while for a new OS or browser version on the contrary of immediate availability in case of owning a lab
Read full review
ScreenShots

TestMu AI Screenshots

Screenshot of an automated screenshotScreenshot of mobile-browser-testingScreenshot of automation testing on LambdatestScreenshot of some of the available integrations.Screenshot of real-time testingScreenshot of responsive testing