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

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 11, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.0
Katalon Studio offers easy automation, enabling 20% test case efficiency, cost savings, and faster delivery for budget-conscious teams.
Sentiment score
7.5
OpenText UFT One offers over 300% ROI by enhancing efficiency, reducing costs, and supporting diverse systems through AI capabilities.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.8
Katalon Studio's customer service is generally efficient, but technical support varies, with documentation and response time needing improvement.
Sentiment score
6.2
Users report varied OpenText UFT One support experiences, noting quick responses but sometimes slow resolutions, especially for complex issues.
Katalon's support is not very strong unless you opt for the enterprise version.
Documentation is good.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.8
Katalon Studio is adaptable for various team sizes, with mixed reviews on scalability, script execution, and integration.
Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText UFT One scales well with proper licensing management, though execution speed and large test volumes may pose challenges.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
Katalon Studio is generally reliable but experiences stability issues with complex models and changes; user ratings vary widely.
Sentiment score
6.5
Users have mixed opinions on OpenText UFT One's stability, noting issues with crashing and updates affecting performance.
It needs more stability when test cases are executed.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
 

Room For Improvement

Katalon Studio struggles with language limitations, integration issues, instability, high costs, and lacks support for various platforms.
OpenText UFT One needs performance and stability improvements, enhanced browser compatibility, intuitive interface, and better technical support.
Providing clearer guidance during the trial period for certification and training modules would also help.
Parallel execution is available, but not with the free version.
I would like Katalon Studio to develop manual test case generation using AI capabilities, as other tools like those using OpenAI are already doing this.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
 

Setup Cost

Katalon Studio provides free and paid tiers, seen as competitive and cost-effective, but opinions on pricing vary.
OpenText UFT One, though pricey, offers robust automation features and integration, making it valuable for enterprises needing extensive capabilities.
The approximate cost is around $8,000.
The pricing of Katalon Studio is affordable, making it a sensible option for those looking for an affordable range.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
 

Valuable Features

Katalon Studio provides versatile, user-friendly automated testing tools with robust integrations and minimal coding needed for efficient testing.
OpenText UFT One provides comprehensive cross-technology testing automation with strong compatibility, integration, and innovative AI testing capabilities.
Katalon Studio has the highest number of integrations compared to other tools at a similar price point, such as Jira, Brokerstack, and Jenkins.
The browser compatibility and self-healing capabilities are excellent, which helps keep the code updated.
It is good to record and playback in low code.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
 

Categories and Ranking

Katalon Studio
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in API Testing Tools
4th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
3rd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in API Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
96
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Regression Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Katalon Studio is 17.1%, up from 16.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 14.9%, up from 13.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Regression Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Anuradha.Kapoor Kapoor - PeerSpot reviewer
Functional automation features and the recording functionality saves time but the performance and script execution is slow
I would like to see improvements in how Katalon Studio works with iOS applications, especially with React Native applications. The speed is very slow. It takes time. Katalon Studio also takes my laptop memory, and execution becomes slow for the script. There are parallel execution options. I'm sure their online cloud version must be very fast, but as a service-based company, we are under NDA with our clients and can't run their code on our servers. I would like to see iOS improve and see a more capable recording feature. Katalon Studio has released an AI version, and I have a demo scheduled to see the new features.
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
845,589 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
33%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Katalon Studio?
I used the trial version of Katalon Studio, which I got for free. For TestComplete, I used an internal license as my organization was partnered with them.
What needs improvement with Katalon Studio?
Extending the certification validity, especially after the trial period, would be beneficial. Providing clearer guidance during the trial period for certification and training modules would also he...
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

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Coca-Cola Tesla Black Board TaTa Consultancy Services Sony
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Katalon Studio vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
845,589 professionals have used our research since 2012.