OpenText UFT One vs. TestComplete

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
TestComplete
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
TestComplete 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 DetailsPay 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 UFT One
Chose OpenText UFT One
Since this tool is licensed most of the work is performed by the tool and one needs to just record or create basic script and it should be running in no time
Chose OpenText UFT One
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
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

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 …

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
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, …
Chose OpenText UFT One
  • Alignment/Integration with other products like ALM, Sprinter, Mobile Center
  • Knowledge availability
  • Dedicated vendor support
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
We got on board with HP UFT as we were sold on the BPT model used by HP. IT was an excellent way to create reusable scripts. That was the biggest advantage of going with HP UFT. Also have 1 tool for GUI and API testing. Previously, we had used service test from HP. But really …
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 …
TestComplete
Chose TestComplete
SonarQube and Visual Studio Test Professional
Chose TestComplete
We still use both products in our company, since Postman is mainly used for backend automation and TestComplete for frontend automation. The difference is that via Postman you can easily write tests that send different requests to your server, get the response, and compare them …
Chose TestComplete
I have evaluated Tricentis Tosca and another product along with TestComplete. TestComplete is much better [and more] user friendly.
Chose TestComplete
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 …
Chose TestComplete
For their special field (API & web testing) I choose those products over TestComplete
Chose TestComplete
Below are the points why we selected TestComplete 1. Better UI. 2. Plenty of validation cases supports i.e. checkpoints. 3. Multiple scripting languages. 4. Better accuracy and robustness. 5. Good documentation and Video tutorials. 6. Great support team.
Chose TestComplete
Based on my evaluation regards to the product cost, useability, the TestComplete came first on my selections.
Chose TestComplete
TestStand is a much more complex tool than TestComplete and it's for a little bit different solutions I think. For desktop apps I would use the TestComplete, For Mobile / Web -> Python + Behave + Pytest selenium - TestComplete is much overcomplicated and slow! For …
Chose TestComplete
The major advantage over other tools is the ease of use. A chimp will be able to figure out TestComplete whereas the others require extensive coding knowledge
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.
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete is more complete than Cypress.io because Cypress.io is only used to complete end-to-end testing for web apps. These two tools are user friendly and easy to use. For the needs of our company, we have chosen TestComplete for the variety of testing applications.
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete is a robust test automation tool and not for someone who expects to just record and playback. This can be done with [TestComplete], but the strength of the tool is the ability to code complex actions and capturing of objects. The reporting of results is also …
Chose TestComplete
It has been almost 5 years since we researched products, but TestComplete gave us the best overall advantage to achieve our goals. So, that is why we chose it.
Chose TestComplete
It's been a long time so it may not be a fair assessment, but I don't recall IBM's product being as easy to use or have as many features.
Chose TestComplete
We used before the Coded UI Tests which are in Visual Studio / Azure DevOps, and the tests were impossible to maintain and very very flaky. Then in 2015, we selected TestComplete, as it was clearly the tool with the most feature for desktop UI testing. Selenium was …
Chose TestComplete
We are using Katalon for web-based applications, mainly because our QA engineers have a strong experience with it. But it does not allow precise item identification in Delphi-based applications and that was a show stopper for us. Having received recommendations for …
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete was selected after trying multiple product offerings. Initially these product offerings were installed with trail keys, and various factors were weighted and sized based on complexity to install, and ease of use. TestComplete scored higher than any other product …
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete gives the best option of record and playback. Also, it does not have any problem with object recognition just like Selenium.

Selenium needs more manual efforts in selecting the object properties and utilizing them. Also, Selenium needs a good command of one coding …
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete stacks up because its UI is easier to use than that of Ranorex Studio.
Chose TestComplete
We aren't 100% sure that we will stick with TestComplete for our web-based UI testing for the long haul because Selenium is a bit lighter on the overhead front, but we definitely really like it for testing our standalone applications and utilities. As far as a complete testing …
Chose TestComplete
We use TestExecute together with TestComplete. The ease of use is one of the reasons we have stuck with it for years now. Developers are satisfied due to the time saved with this tool. If you are still hesitating—don’t. We try to find the replacement, but so far can’t because …
Best Alternatives
OpenText UFT OneTestComplete
Small Businesses
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.4 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.4 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 6.1 out of 10
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 6.1 out of 10
Enterprises
SoapUI Open Source
SoapUI Open Source
Score 8.3 out of 10
SoapUI Open Source
SoapUI Open Source
Score 8.3 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
OpenText UFT OneTestComplete
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(0 ratings)
7.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Usability
7.0
(0 ratings)
7.8
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.0
(0 ratings)
6.6
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
6.7
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
OpenText UFT OneTestComplete
Likelihood to Recommend
The tool has evolved to be the market leader in paid GUI testing, at last count, there are over a dozen add-ins (not including subtypes) that can be selected at startup based upon the technology of the application being tested. This includes the standard web types to new mobile applications. It can be plugged into your development tool of choice and reports the results to whatever level you desire.
Read full review
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
  • Integration & Support: a) The way tool integrates with other platforms like .net, mainframe is amazing. It Supports new and legacy web technologies, terminal emulators, and Windows thick client applications. b) It Supports Continuous integration by integrating with Jenkins, Git etc. c) UFT supports cross browser testing & it supports all main browsers like IE, Firefox, Chrome and Apple Safari. d)It’s compatibility with ALM can help store automation execution results back in ALM & even allows us to schedule the automation execution at required date/time.
  • Amazing Features: UFT has so many features but at the same time, it is quite easy to learn & it doesn’t take long to train staff on it. Few amazing features which adds lot of value while scripting are:
  • a) Test Combinations Generator (TCG) - It helps to create test configurations by using the parameters in tests and their possible values to create multiple possible data combinations.
  • b) Insight Recording – It recognizes controls based on their appearance and not their native properties. This can be useful to test controls from an environment that UFT does not support or even from a remote computer running a non-Windows operating system. When UFT runs the test or component, it recognizes the controls in the application by matching them to the images saved with each of the Insight test objects.
  • c) UFT has built in reporting features as well as allowing for customized output files showing exactly where a test step failed along with the timestamp.
  • UFT supports BPT (Business Process Testing), a component-based testing framework which provides strong and efficient platform to test complete business process manually and automatically combines manual and automation tests with less duplication and its component reusability feature makes the testing process very fast.
  • It helps improving efficiency in regression testing and functional testing, in that we automate a lot of repeatable tasks.
  • Organization doesn’t need to have a skilled coder to write a basic automation script with UFT.
Read full review
  • TestComplete is great for working with our non-web applications.
  • TestComplete allows us to interface with our web application in a robust way.
  • Despite the age of our architecture, TestComplete handles the old stuff that's been around a while as well as the newer technology when we are able to implement it.
Read full review
Cons
  • Various formats of reporting support should be possible. Right now UFT supports exporting reports in either HTML or PDF in short or detailed format. If exporting reports could be extended to Excel, CSV, XML, XSLT, MHT formats that would be greatly appreciated.
  • They should improve performance. There will be performance degradation on the test environment due to long continuous executions of automation scripts which leads to inconsistency of results, a better way to resolve this problem should be addressed at some point.
  • Consistency during execution should be maintained.
Read full review
  • Would love to see TC be a plugin for Visual Studio. Instead of VBScript or JavaScript, to use C# or VB.NET
  • Easier to set up with iOS. Android is not bad but iOS seems slow and confusing to get up and running
  • Built-in PDF reading support, built in Excel API
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
No answers on this topic
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.
Read full review
Usability
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
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.
Read full review
Support Rating
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
Some bugs were quickly resolved, but most UX quirks of the tool are just marked "as designed". No follow up for enhancement request.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
No answers on this topic
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
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
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. There is a wide and strong community across the internet.
Read full review
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.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Roi on uft takes time as licensing cost pretty high. I would say you will have to wait for atleast 2 years to see roi value
  • Uft needs time to integrate into the current business as it has few limitations
  • Uft can be right weight so it is easily installed on premise or used from cloud so it can be accessed from anywhere
Read full review
  • Improved product quality overall, since automating tedious tests frees up time and is not prone to fatigue
  • When getting started - depending on the complexity of the software/UI tested - it can be a time sink before it brings actual value, and changes to the structure of the UI need to be communicated early, so the changes can be implemented on time to run the automation
  • Once set up, the maintenance cost is low, and the automation frees up a lot of resources especially in an agile environment where there are a lot of releases that would need regression tests.
Read full review
ScreenShots