OpenText UFT One vs. Selenium

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
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
Selenium
Score 8.1 out of 10
N/A
Selenium is open source software for browser automation, primarily used for functional, load, or performance testing of applications.N/A
Pricing
OpenText UFT OneSelenium
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
OpenText UFT OneSelenium
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
OpenText UFT OneSelenium
Considered Both Products
OpenText UFT One
Chose OpenText UFT One
HP UFT is an excellent tool for test automation; very flexible and powerful. It is much more intuitive than and easier to use than Selenium, however, the only downside when compared side by side with freelance tools like Selenium is the pricing. Selenium can be acquired for …
Chose OpenText UFT One
Since Selenium is restricted to only Web based applications it isn't suitable for our project which has Mainframe and desktop based applications in majority. Selenium is open source and free so it can be preferred for some projects
Chose OpenText UFT One
UFT has the advantages of supporting different types of technologies. Different competitive tools were not able to support the wide range of technologies which UFT does. UFT has a strong history and has been ranked one among all the Test Automation tools for quite some time. …
Chose OpenText UFT One
The only real competitor is Selenium but the simple ease and advanced features of UFT won out during the selection process. Also the ability to test against non-web based applications can come in handy.
Chose OpenText UFT One
[My] company uses UFT across different projects and different departments for all types of testing and automation.
Chose OpenText UFT One
Most of the test tools are similar in nature to what they do. Every tool has its own quirks, making them necessary to understand how and what they do, before we get to start using them; which also happens to be the key to good automation testing. Considering the HP toolset, …
Selenium
Chose Selenium
Customers are always spending less cost on tools and prefer open-source tools which leverage all applications Can be tailored your framework in selenium according to application Moreover CI/CD pipeline is easy in selenium compared to other tools Can be built custom test …
Chose Selenium
Selenium is way better than those two as it's free and has great community support.
Chose Selenium
It is one of the leading open source tools with lot of good features to go well with web automation.
Chose Selenium
UFT is a paid tool from microfocus and able to automated alomsts all platforms but there is Fee for licensed versions software. TOSCA is also a paid tool from Tricentis which does not require coding skills from tester and implements mode based automation. where as selenium is …
Chose Selenium
Selenium supports more browsers, selenium has huge open source community, and, best of all, it's free
Chose Selenium
HQ UFT, it is one of the best and has more abilities but it is too much expensive while Selenium is free.
SmartBear TestComplete, same reason as UFT.
Watir, it is a Selenium-like open source project but has less features and limited documentation.
Chose Selenium
HP UFT vs. Selenium - the major difference is that Selenium is free and open source. So there is a lot of money saved upfront on licensing - moreover with UFT/QTP VB scripting is a must and VB is not a very flexible language, is outdated and is a hard skill to find these days.
Top Pros
Top Cons
Best Alternatives
OpenText UFT OneSelenium
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
SoapUI Open Source
SoapUI Open Source
Score 7.8 out of 10
ignio AIOps
ignio AIOps
Score 8.1 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
OpenText UFT OneSelenium
Likelihood to Recommend
8.9
(11 ratings)
9.2
(55 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
9.2
(6 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
8.8
(6 ratings)
Support Rating
8.0
(1 ratings)
8.3
(11 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(3 ratings)
User Testimonials
OpenText UFT OneSelenium
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
Open Source
When you have to test the UI and how it behaves when certain actions are performed, you need something that can automate the browsers. This is where Selenium comes to the rescue. If you have to test APIs and not the frontend (UI), I would recommend going with other libraries that support HTTP Requests. Selenium is good only when you have no choice but to run the steps on a browser.
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
Open Source
  • For any web based UI automation, Selenium is the best tool out there to automate your tests.
  • It supports multiple coding languages like Java, Python, Ruby, C# etc.. to choose from.
  • There is a huge community of users and can get many answers on StackOverFlow.
  • It has lot of other plugins to make your tests even more efficient.
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
Open Source
  • Selenium is pretty user-friendly but sometimes tests tend to flake out. I'd say roughly one out of twenty tests yields a false positive.
  • Selenium software cannot read images. This is a minor negative because a free plug-in is available from alternate sources.
  • Slowness may be a minor factor with Selenium, though this is an issue with basically any testing software since waiting on a site to execute JavaScript requires the browser to wait for a particular action.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
OpenText
No answers on this topic
Open Source
We love this product mainly because of its high customization abilities and the ease of use. Moreover, its free and can be learned easily through online communities and videos. The tests are more consistent and reliable as compared to Manual tests. It has enabled us to test a large number of features all in one go, which would have impossible through manual tests. The reports generated at the end of the tests are really helpful for the QA and the development teams to get a fair view of the application.
Read full review
Usability
OpenText
No answers on this topic
Open Source
As I mentioned earlier, the reason I use Selenium is because there is a fairly widespread community of users, and user support services are at a good level. because the application is open source, it works on many platforms (Windows, Linux, IOS) without any problems. In addition, it gives us a lot of options for writing functional tests. For errors that we receive through the application, we can easily find the reasons for errors in the forums.
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
Open Source
Selenium does not have technical support available easily. You have to go through forums to get the information you need. However, there are excellent forums out there that make it easy to troubleshoot. The open-source flexibility makes it difficult to have dedicated support.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
OpenText
No answers on this topic
Open Source
We did everything we needed to use it. Now we can execute our tests on different operational systems and browsers running few tests simultaneously. We also implemented Appium framework to execute our tests on mobile devices, such as iPhones, iPads, Android phones and tablets. We use SauceLabs for our test execution and Jenkins for continuous integration.
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
Open Source
At the time of adoption, there were not many other alternatives that were even close to being competitive when it comes to browser testing. As far as I know now to this day, there is still little competition to Selenium for what it does. Any other browser-based testing still utilises Selenium to interact with the browser.
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
Open Source
  • There hasn’t been a downside to using it yet other than we’ve got to update the programs we create for each change.
  • This has saved us hundreds of hours of manpower by allowing our automation engineer to rapid fire tests.
  • We are able to screenshot and save entire sites before and after launch with a program the automation engineer created
  • We can compare large volumes of data against data in excel docs with a program created using Selenium
Read full review
ScreenShots