We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and SonarQube based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"The tool helps us to monitor and manage violations. It manages the bugs and security violations."
"It is very good at identifying technical debt."
"SonarQube is good in terms of code review and to report on basic vulnerabilities in your applications."
"SonarQube is useful for controlling all of our Azure task tracking and scanning."
"The solution's user interface is very user-friendly."
"It's a great product. If you are in a hurry and just want to focus on the functional requirements of any kind of project, SonarQube is highly helpful. It enables the developers to code securely. SonarQube has a Community edition, which is open source and free. There are also three proprietary or paid versions: Enterprise edition, Data Center edition, and Developer edition."
"Strong code evaluation for budget-minded clients."
"SonarQube has a lot of value, it reviews the basic coding standards and security vulnerabilities of code that help to reduce issues."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"The solution is expensive."
"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."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"If there was an official Docker image of SonarQube that could easily integrate into the pipeline would help the user to plug in and plug out and use it directly without any custom configuration. I am not sure if this is being offered already in an update but it would be very helpful."
"One thing to improve would be the integration. There is a steep learning curve to get it integrated."
"The software testing tool capability could improve. It does not always integrate well. You have to use a specific plugin and the plugin does not always go in Apple's applications."
"The reporting can be improved."
"There is no automation. You need to put the code there and test. You then pull the results and put them back in the development environment. There is no integration with the development environment. We would like it to be integrated with our development environment, which is basically the CI/CD pipeline or the IDE that we have."
"The handling of the contents of Docker container images could be better."
"SonarQube needs to improve its support model. They do not work 24/7, and they do not provide weekend support in case things go wrong. They only have a standard 8:00 am to 5:00 pm support model in which you have to raise a support ticket and wait. The support model is not effective for premium customers."
"If the product could assist us with fixing issues by giving us more pointers then it would help to resolve more of the warnings without such a commitment in terms of time."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 112 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and GitHub Advanced Security.
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.