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
95
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 0.6%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 10.1%, up from 9.6% 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."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."
 

Cons

"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
 

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 of the product is an issue."
"It's an expensive solution."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"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."
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
"The tool's price is high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
27%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
14%
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?
UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...
 

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: February 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.