Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText UFT One comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM DevOps Test UI
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
29th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
14th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
96
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 0.7%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 9.9%, up from 9.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HZ
Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support
The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to how it works with the browser and the startup takes some time. Adjusting those changes to speed up the load time will improve the solution.
Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results
With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
 

Cons

"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"The tool's price is high."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
28%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Insurance Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...
 

Also Known As

IBM Rational Functional Tester
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Edumate
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.