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
Rally Software
Score 7.7 out of 10
N/A
Rally Software headquartered in Boulder, Colorado developed the Rally agile software development / ALM platform which was acquired by CA Technologies and rebranded as CA Agile Central. After CA's acquisition by Broadcom the software was once again rebranded as Rally.
N/A
SpiraTest
Score 8.0 out of 10
Mid-Size Companies (51-1,000 employees)
SpiraTest allows customers to manage their software testing and quality assurance activities. It provides requirements management, test management and bug-tracking functionality with integrated reporting.
$130.99
per month 3 concurrent users (minimum)
Pricing
OpenText UFT One
Rally Software
SpiraTest
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Cloud
$43.66
per month per concurrent user
Download
$423.66
per year per concurrent user
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
OpenText UFT One
Rally Software
SpiraTest
Free Trial
No
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
Discount available for annual billing on Cloud solution. 3 concurrent user minimum. Volume concurrent user discount available.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
OpenText UFT One
Rally Software
SpiraTest
Features
OpenText UFT One
Rally Software
SpiraTest
Project Management
Comparison of Project Management features of Product A and Product B
OpenText UFT One
-
Ratings
Rally Software
7.8
4 Ratings
4% above category average
SpiraTest
-
Ratings
Task Management
00 Ratings
8.84 Ratings
00 Ratings
Resource Management
00 Ratings
8.04 Ratings
00 Ratings
Gantt Charts
00 Ratings
7.04 Ratings
00 Ratings
Scheduling
00 Ratings
8.84 Ratings
00 Ratings
Support for Agile Methodology
00 Ratings
8.84 Ratings
00 Ratings
Support for Waterfall Methodology
00 Ratings
7.84 Ratings
00 Ratings
Document Management
00 Ratings
7.34 Ratings
00 Ratings
Email integration
00 Ratings
8.54 Ratings
00 Ratings
Mobile Access
00 Ratings
7.03 Ratings
00 Ratings
Timesheet Tracking
00 Ratings
7.33 Ratings
00 Ratings
Change request and Case Management
00 Ratings
6.73 Ratings
00 Ratings
Budget and Expense Management
00 Ratings
8.33 Ratings
00 Ratings
Search
00 Ratings
7.34 Ratings
00 Ratings
Visual planning tools
00 Ratings
8.04 Ratings
00 Ratings
Agile Development
Comparison of Agile Development features of Product A and Product B
OpenText UFT One
-
Ratings
Rally Software
7.3
4 Ratings
7% below category average
SpiraTest
-
Ratings
DevOps Tool Integrations
00 Ratings
6.33 Ratings
00 Ratings
Code Review
00 Ratings
6.01 Ratings
00 Ratings
Code Collaboration
00 Ratings
8.01 Ratings
00 Ratings
Velocity Calculation
00 Ratings
7.84 Ratings
00 Ratings
Dependencies and Blockers
00 Ratings
8.34 Ratings
00 Ratings
Test Management
Comparison of Test Management features of Product A and Product B
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.
Rally Software is well suited for large Agile or scrum teams who do sprints and it helps managing sprints and backlogs. It is well suited for organizations who want visibility into work being done and progress. Suitable for tracking is user stories, defects and release planning. Works well with CI CD too. It would not be suitable for small teams or startups. For teams that don't use agile. Teams who want lightweight tools like Jira. Companies with a limited budget.
I think SpiraTest is well suited as a test suite, but in situations where the team is already using multiple products from one particular provider, it may be better to go with that provider's test solution. This is because integrations are very important nowadays, and should be considered when picking your project management software. It should be noted that management selected SpiraTest primarily due to the low cost of the test software. I'm less familiar with other test software in the field, but if cost is an issue, you should take a look at SpiraTest.
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.
There are dashboards that provide friendly and useful metrics at the team, program and portfolio levels which help get an easy and quick visual representation of what's going on.
Story management made easier, It offers a quick way of quickly entering a number of user stories without losing the overview, by just typing the title and selecting a few attributes directly in the overview screen.
Sprint management is seamless in CA Agile Central . It allows you to drag stories from the backlog to the sprints and back again. When a story is dragged into an sprint, it automatically checks the velocity for that sprint and indicates how many more story points can be chipped in. No more manual checking needed by scrum master with respect to allocation and team velocity.
Though CA Agile Central has many inbuilt apps, but it also has an App-SDK that allows you to build free app extensions using JavaScript and HTML. So, as per their needs, teams can customize & build various apps & dashboards.
Dashboard is an awesome feature which allows you to select and drag panels with all kinds of graphical information about the current sprints and releases.
It offers tremendous support for scaled Agile & almost all scaling frameworks are supported specifically tuned to SAFe .
CA Agile Central includes several applications but it also integrates well with Jira, Confluence, Jenkins, Eclipse, Subversion, IBM, HP, Salesforce.com and many other products to allow users to organize projects to their specifications. So you can still use Jira at a team level & CA Agile Central at the program & portfolio level for efficient tracking & management.
The custom tags are very helpful in segregating the user stories based on the project needs. Even though it's a very small feature, it is very effective ( you will realize why specifically if you are using Jira).
CA Central Agile enables agile delivery with ease and provides comprehensive features to track time-boxes, Work In Progress items of the forecast increments.
Backlog management is hassle free since you can either drag and drop your user stories to the desired position on the backlog, or change a setting and manually enter priorities as a number.
A clean view of test case steps, expected results and the ability to record a result for each step quickly on one page per test set. This really helps testers work through executing manual test cases.
Hierarchical structure of releases and builds, requirements, and test cases.
Can quickly build test sets and/or test runs per build/release.
Simple identification of each test case, requirement, test run, build, release, etc.
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.
User management is pretty basic and could be better. For example more filters and reports and more ability to do mass updates.
The report generator is very, very basic and is not WYSIWYG. It has limited filters to generate reports. Often a Scrum master will need to export data to Excel or a tool like Crystal Reports to get enhanced reporting capability.
Basic reporting can become very verbose unless you set lots of filters and parameters.
The ability to customize some of the verbiage in the application would help bridge the gap between translating what SpiraTest's testing terminology is and the company culture uses for testing terminology.
Great UI, recent refresh was terrific. Great graphs and metrics, inline editing for updates, and a multitude of views on sprint progress make for a great team collaboration experience. There is also an active community and forums so that if you do need help, it is readily available
The screens render relatively quickly but many actions that you would expect to require a single click require multiple clicks and pop-up windows. The extra windows and clicks make the product feel ponderous.
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.
I've had to use support only one time and my issue was eventually resolved but not because of my ticket--because others complained about the functionality taken away so they brought it back. My ticket was never answered or addressed. So I can't really say much for the support factor for Rally.
As promised during product selection, SpiraPlan support has always been quick and helpful. Replies almost always come back in hours (and often in an hour or two). And SpiraPlan's online tech support maintains all support conversations online so no need to look through emails to try to recall repllies.
It more or less confirmed that we are using it the way they had in mind. We were hoping for a epiphany in terms of how we could use it better.
They also want to be a go to source for agile processes and have an online resource center. It’s not that great but had a couple of nuggets. It hasn’t really helped us too much and we are not too far off from the classical interpretation of agile.
I would recommend training, in particular for organizations that multiple on-going projects. The product seems optimized for larger, more complex teams and getting proper training on how to configure, administer and use the system would be beneficial
Implementation of RALLY services and program satisfaction among various group,... 1) Dev Outcomes: How were our resiliencies, development, learning & practitioners “make them do the work,” but that they ask you to do it “in a way like before. 2) The Ops group: Just wish to make sure any change won't break current production envirements All the stake holders has to be on the same page
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.
Rally and Asana have comparable features and are both valuable project management tools, but Asana's user interface is well-organized and highly intuitive. It's easy to add tasks and collaborators, edit due dates, indicate progress on tasks, close out projects, etc. However, Rally's interface is somewhat cluttered and difficult to navigate. My team ended up choosing Asana over Rally due to these concerns.
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.
it helped organizing many of the processes management use to communicate tasks with engineers, and provided detailed charts on the speed/blockage during any iteration
with time Rally became the main tool we used to track and report tasks/defects in our projects, but frequent service outages made it very hard to continue consider as a reliable solution
too much features is good, but for engineers a few features (User Stories section, iterations, defects, and Kanban boards) are necessary and the rest is just noise