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 suited for CI integrations. We liked it, in particular, because it integrates greatly with other platforms, like .net, QC and Jenkins. An added advantage was the multi-device support.
One of the best advantages of MicroFocus is that it integrates with legacy web technologies and even Windows client applications. Finally, MicroFocus supports cross-browser testing. Regardless of many features, including a test combinations generator and insight recording, it is relatively easy to learn.
That being said, it doesn’t support multiple formats of reporting. For now, UFT only supports exporting reports in HTML or PDF. MicroFocus should allow exporting to Excel, CSV, XML, and other formats. There is a bit of performance degradation of the test environment when executing automation scripts continuously for a long time. The execution can be inconsistent sometimes, and scripting takes a long time. Another downside is the high licensing price.
Tricentis Tosca is an integrated testing solution that includes testing automation and case design approach, risk-based testing, test data management, and service virtualization. The best feature is its versatility in helping both web and desktop applications. It is very reliable and stable. Another great feature is that you can reuse test cases.
The platform supports multiple technologies and devices. It is truly end-to-end. Because it is scriptless, anyone can learn to use it.
As much as we like it, there are downsides to Tosca, too. The price is one of them. It runs a bit expensive, but it is worth it. The test design section is complicated to learn, and the UI takes time to get used to.
Conclusions
Tosca is a better solution in terms of usability and versatility. MicroFocus is better for organizations with legacy web applications.
@Leah Fainchtein Buenavida I am always surprised when someone does not realize the "U" in UFT stands for "Unified" UFT is a combination of two products: Service Test (API) and QuickTest Pro (GUI) testing. It's two products for the price of one. Plus it has Test Combinations Generator in Micro Focus UFT.
Both products are very useful but it really depends on what you need to test and who is building the tests. We recently chose UFT One over Tosca in a specific use case where identifying images inside a map was needed. UFT uses both OCR and Image recognition where in Tosca you would have to identify specific pixels and those pixels could move depending on what device you were using.
From a test building perspective, I feel it is easier to build tests in UFT One than in Tosca. UFT One also gives you the ability to develop tests by either writing code or using the record and convert to code option (Allows developers and Business users to work together to build/update the same test).
If you can provide more info on what you are testing and your key drivers, I can try and give more info on what tool may be best.
OpenText Functional Testing and Tricentis Tosca are competitors in software testing solutions. OpenText Functional Testing holds an advantage due to its robust performance in handling both legacy and modern applications, whereas Tricentis Tosca primarily focuses on modern systems.Features: OpenText Functional Testing is recognized for its user-friendliness, robust integration capabilities, and strong object identification supporting various applications. It also enhances testing precision...
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 suited for CI integrations. We liked it, in particular, because it integrates greatly with other platforms, like .net, QC and Jenkins. An added advantage was the multi-device support.
One of the best advantages of MicroFocus is that it integrates with legacy web technologies and even Windows client applications. Finally, MicroFocus supports cross-browser testing. Regardless of many features, including a test combinations generator and insight recording, it is relatively easy to learn.
That being said, it doesn’t support multiple formats of reporting. For now, UFT only supports exporting reports in HTML or PDF. MicroFocus should allow exporting to Excel, CSV, XML, and other formats. There is a bit of performance degradation of the test environment when executing automation scripts continuously for a long time. The execution can be inconsistent sometimes, and scripting takes a long time. Another downside is the high licensing price.
Tricentis Tosca is an integrated testing solution that includes testing automation and case design approach, risk-based testing, test data management, and service virtualization. The best feature is its versatility in helping both web and desktop applications. It is very reliable and stable. Another great feature is that you can reuse test cases.
The platform supports multiple technologies and devices. It is truly end-to-end. Because it is scriptless, anyone can learn to use it.
As much as we like it, there are downsides to Tosca, too. The price is one of them. It runs a bit expensive, but it is worth it. The test design section is complicated to learn, and the UI takes time to get used to.
Conclusions
Tosca is a better solution in terms of usability and versatility. MicroFocus is better for organizations with legacy web applications.
@Leah Fainchtein Buenavida I am always surprised when someone does not realize the "U" in UFT stands for "Unified" UFT is a combination of two products: Service Test (API) and QuickTest Pro (GUI) testing. It's two products for the price of one. Plus it has Test Combinations Generator in Micro Focus UFT.
Both products are very useful but it really depends on what you need to test and who is building the tests. We recently chose UFT One over Tosca in a specific use case where identifying images inside a map was needed. UFT uses both OCR and Image recognition where in Tosca you would have to identify specific pixels and those pixels could move depending on what device you were using.
From a test building perspective, I feel it is easier to build tests in UFT One than in Tosca. UFT One also gives you the ability to develop tests by either writing code or using the record and convert to code option (Allows developers and Business users to work together to build/update the same test).
If you can provide more info on what you are testing and your key drivers, I can try and give more info on what tool may be best.