OpenText UFT One vs. TestComplete

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
TestComplete
Score 7.0 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
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, …
TestComplete
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
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.
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 …
Chose TestComplete
  • Good image handling techniques, object repository, CI
  • Bug tracking integrations will be a good opt for test complete
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.
Top Pros
Top Cons
Best Alternatives
OpenText UFT OneTestComplete
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
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 8.1 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
OpenText UFT OneTestComplete
Likelihood to Recommend
8.9
(11 ratings)
6.4
(88 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
8.1
(6 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Read full review
Usability
OpenText
No answers on this topic
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.
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
SmartBear
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
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
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
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.
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
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
Read full review
ScreenShots