AutonomIQ TestIQ vs OpenText UFT One comparison

"UI is one of the best features of AutonomIQ TestIQ."

"The stop automation is a great feature."

"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."

"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."

"It's simple to set up."

"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."

"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."

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

"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."

"The ability to capture and record with the help of automation is not there in AutonomIQ TestIQ."

"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."

"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."

"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."

"UFT still requires some coding."

"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."

"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."

"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."

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

"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."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"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."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"The price is reasonable."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."