OpenText UFT One vs. TestDrive

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
TestDrive
Score 8.4 out of 10
Enterprise companies (1,001+ employees)
TestDrive offers end-to-test automation across browsers, client/server, and legacy applications, Windows GUI, Java, SAP, Salesforce or anything, without the need for high-cost, specialized automation engineers. 100% code-free Patented user annotation thinks as a user does Self-healing minimizes maintenance Automatic synchronization -including over single page web apps Cross-browser testing at the click of a button, even true of the previously difficult to automate, single page…N/A
Pricing
OpenText UFT OneTestDrive
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
OpenText UFT OneTestDrive
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoYes
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Best Alternatives
OpenText UFT OneTestDrive
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
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 8.1 out of 10
ignio AIOps
ignio AIOps
Score 8.1 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
OpenText UFT OneTestDrive
Likelihood to Recommend
8.9
(11 ratings)
8.4
(2 ratings)
Support Rating
8.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
OpenText UFT OneTestDrive
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
Original Software
The more our business grew, the more we felt the risk on the horizon in that we needed somewhere to really manage and document our testing evidence. So, TestDrive helped us through the testing phase of the project by documenting and being able to access testing results, and also we had a broader scale view around regression testing.
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
Original Software
  • Easy automation.
  • Great customer service.
  • Easy script running.
  • Relatively easy to implement.
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
Original Software
  • Not suitable for small applications.
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
Original Software
No answers on this topic
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
Original Software
We have not tried other similar products so it is difficult to say, but we definitely enjoy this product and the support team to work with
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
Original Software
  • Thanks to TestDrive, our automation is always ready to run, and the script maintenance lag is removed, testing can go ahead, and issues are found quicker.
  • We no longer worry about varying response times for the application, nor do we no need to code "timing loops" to check if the application is in the right state.
Read full review
ScreenShots