OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs OpenText UFT One comparison

OpenText UFT Digital Lab and OpenText UFT One are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked #18 with an average rating of 8.3, while OpenText UFT One is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.7. OpenText UFT Digital Lab holds a 0.9% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText UFT One’s 9.9% mindshare. Additionally, 82% of OpenText UFT Digital Lab users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText UFT One users who would recommend it.

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Read 17 OpenText UFT Digital Lab reviews

606 Views
347 Comparison Views

82% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

Read 96 OpenText UFT One reviews

6,736 Views
4,304 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

OpenText UFT One

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT One and OpenText UFT Digital Lab compete in the test automation category, with UFT One focusing on desktop and web testing, while UFT Digital Lab specializes in mobile app testing. UFT Digital Lab seems to have the upper hand in mobile testing adaptability due to its advanced features justifying its cost.

Features: OpenText UFT One offers robust cross-browser compatibility, seamless integration capabilities for diverse environments, and powerful object recognition tools for desktop and web testing. UFT Digital Lab provides real device access, cloud-based testing labs, and enhanced mobile app testing features.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One could improve by enhancing mobile testing features, increasing scalability for cloud integrations, and reducing setup complexities for non-desktop applications. UFT Digital Lab could benefit from reduced initial setup costs, improved cross-browser testing capabilities, and better integration with third-party testing tools.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One is known for its straightforward on-premises deployment with excellent customer support, ideal for enterprises. UFT Digital Lab offers cloud-centric deployment, which allows for easy scalability and competitive support, excelling in adapting cloud resources quickly compared to UFT One's traditional infrastructure needs.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One is attractive due to its competitive initial setup cost and favorable ROI from its broad testing abilities. UFT Digital Lab, while having a higher setup cost, justifies this with significant ROI from advanced mobile testing features, offering potential greater long-term returns.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. OpenText UFT One Report (Updated: May 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. OpenText UFT One

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 851,604 peers since 2012

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

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

18th

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

5th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText UFT One

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

2nd

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT Digital Lab is 0.9%, up from 0.7% 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

Robinson Caiado

Sales Leader at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Automates mobile solutions while boosting productivity and fostering innovation

It allows multiple devices to be used and gives flexibility in adding devices when a project is needed. Most of the time, I have several devices where it is predefined. We can use it, but sometimes, we must scale it in a particular situation. It's very flexible. It is very important because we can use a different approach to software testing, for example, to find a way to execute UFT software testing with only one execution. This reproduces all the platforms that we need.

Read full review

Don Ingerson

Sr. QA Automation Engineer at a manufacturing company with 11-50 employees

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."

"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."

"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."

"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."

"The product is easy to use."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."

"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."

"It's simple to set up."

"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."

"OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier."

"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."

"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."

"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."

"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."

"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."

More OpenText UFT One pros

Cons

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."

"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."

"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."

"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."

"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."

"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."

"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."

"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."

"The user interface could be improved"

"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."

"We'd like it to have less scripting."

"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."

"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."

"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

More OpenText UFT One cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."

"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."

"The product could be more affordable."

"The tool's price is high."

"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

21%

Non Profit

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

17%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

Sometimes, it's challenging to have relations with OpenText support.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

We use it in financial services companies to automate mobile solutions and applications.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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 ...

See all answers

Comparisons

Perfecto vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 19% of the time

Sauce Labs vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 19% of the time

BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 14% of the time

Appium vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 13% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 9% of the time

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 12% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

May 2025

Download OpenText UFT Digital Lab product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

May 2025

Download OpenText UFT One product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

Overview

Our enterprise-level solution is a complete, centralized lab of real mobile devices and emulators. With remote access, developers and testers can develop, debug, test, monitor, and optimize mobile apps from anywhere.

OpenText

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

OpenText

Sample Customers

Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. OpenText UFT One

May 2025

Free Report: OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. OpenText UFT One

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. OpenText UFT One report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Mobile App Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.