TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    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

    TestComplete

    Score8 out of 10
    N/ATestComplete is a GUI test automation tool that enables users of all skill levels to test the UI of every desktop, web, and mobile application. TestComplete is best suited for testers, automation engineers, and QA teams in any industry.

    $2,256

    per license

    Pricing
    OpenText UFT OneTestComplete
    Editions & Modules
    No answers on this topic
    Node-Locked Base
    2,256
    per license
    Node-Locked Pro
    3,950
    per license
    Float - Base
    5,077
    per license
    Float - Pro
    7,901
    per license
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    OpenText UFT OneTestComplete
    Free Trial
    NoYes
    Free/Freemium Version
    NoNo
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    NoNo
    Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
    Additional Details—Pay for only the modules needed. TestComplete Pro includes all three modules: desktop, web, and mobile, at a bundled price point, as well as access to the parallel testing engine, TestExecute. TestComplete has additional add-ons, including TestExecute and the Intelligent Quality Add-On.
    More Pricing Information
    Community Pulse
    OpenText UFT OneTestComplete
    Considered Both Products
    OpenText
    Chose OpenText UFT One

    We need to look at open source tools if the team has time to learn like Selenium.

    Selenium can integrate with just about anything to give you a robust framework such as Maven for source code compilation, Test NG to drive tests, Jenkins or Hudson to integrate into a Continuous …

    Incentivized
    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, …
    Incentivized
    SmartBear
    Chose TestComplete
    I know from using other tools in the past years that TestComplete could be more cost-effective, yet still get the job done.
    Incentivized
    Chose TestComplete
    [...]
    Incentivized
    Chose TestComplete
    Very close evaluations on all tools
    Incentivized
    Chose TestComplete
    I have used UFT, Katalon Studio.
    UFT has robust object recognition engine than TestComplete.
    For example, Katalon Studio supports Groovy and Java so it is easier for programmers/testers to automate apps in java as it is a popular language, but TC doesn't support it.
    Incentivized
    Chose TestComplete
    UFT, TOSCA, and open-source Selenium/Cucumber based. The ease of use with TestComplete is comparable to TOSCA, but it is a lot cheaper and allows for a better ROI. UFT is better at recognizing elements and different technologies based on Java. TestComplete is easier to set up …
    Incentivized
    Chose TestComplete
    It's a great tool with a lot of in built features and support for cloud. In the market, there are many test tools available and there are many open source tools too. But this tool has some unique features which fair well.
    Incentivized
    Chose TestComplete
    • Good image handling techniques, object repository, CI
    • Bug tracking integrations will be a good opt for test complete
    Incentivized
    Key User Insights
    Would buy again
    No answers on this topic
    93%
    Would buy again
    25 Answers
    Delivers good value for the price
    No answers on this topic
    88%
    Delivers good value for the price
    22 Answers
    Happy with the feature set
    No answers on this topic
    93%
    Happy with the feature set
    25 Answers
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    No answers on this topic
    85%
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    22 Answers
    Implementation went as expected
    No answers on this topic
    85%
    Implementation went as expected
    22 Answers
    Best Alternatives
    OpenText UFT OneTestComplete
    Small Businesses
    TestComplete
    Score8 out of 10
    No answers on this topic
    Medium-sized Companies
    ReadyAPI
    Score6.1 out of 10
    OpenText UFT One
    Score8 out of 10
    Enterprises
    SoapUI Open Source
    Score8.3 out of 10
    SoapUI Open Source
    Score8.3 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    OpenText UFT OneTestComplete
    Likelihood to Recommend
    8.0
    (12 ratings)
    7.0
    (88 ratings)
    Likelihood to Renew
    -
    (0 ratings)
    8.1
    (6 ratings)
    Usability
    7.0
    (1 ratings)
    7.8
    (7 ratings)
    Support Rating
    8.0
    (1 ratings)
    6.6
    (7 ratings)
    Implementation Rating
    -
    (0 ratings)
    6.7
    (4 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    OpenText UFT OneTestComplete
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    Best suited to smaller unit test or tests broken up, couple of forms at a time Not suited - larger regressions test involving multiple systems. - my main regression involving payments has been unsuccessful for the last 3 years despite all working fine separately and while being watched
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    • Identifying UI objects and application structure
    • Expandability of tests through scripts and script extensions/plugins
    • low barrier of entry (you can get started quickly, and other's don't need much explanation to contribute on a basic level)
    • Possibility of Jira integration for reporting
    • Relatively few (and usually easy to solve) git conflicts when working simultaneously
    • easy handling of test data, also for iterative tests
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    • TestComplete could stand to have a simplified view for different types of users. For instance, as a manager/architecture guy, I'm not so interested in getting into the code and am more interested in file-based interactions.
    • TestComplete could use more integration with reporting for things like TeamCity to improve test status visibility.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Likelihood to Renew
    OpenText
    No answers on this topic
    SmartBear
    We have bigger test automation pack using test complete at the same time we also think this is not good performing tool for large number of test automation scripts.
    Incentivized
    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
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    It is usable when you become accustomed to its quirks. Not using it for two months and then you need to re-learn the quirks for some features (but some quirks are so awful that they will never fade from your memory). So, when using it regularly, it is possible to be quite productive, if no big correction in name mapping is needed.
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    Some bugs were quickly resolved, but most UX quirks of the tool are just marked "as designed". No follow up for enhancement request.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Implementation Rating
    OpenText
    No answers on this topic
    SmartBear
    If you develop a mobile application and your testing process goes in cloud, probably you will face a problem - how to implement a stable connection between your mobile devices and testing servers
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    TestComplete stacks up against them in terms of GUI and seamless performance. It records each and every step and action been performed in the application and produces a detailed report in a well-structured manner. It can connect and access seamlessly among various databases directly to speed up the testing process.
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    • Saves hundreds of man-hours with either QA testing or data entry
    • With the small cost of the product, it has saved the company money with both employee costs as well as the cost of mistakes made by human error or software bugs
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    ScreenShots