We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Digital Lab and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"The product is easy to use."
"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."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"It's simple to set up."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"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 is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
"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."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"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 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."
"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."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"The solution is expensive."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"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."
OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 16 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText UFT Digital Lab is rated 7.4, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Digital Lab writes "Robust solution for application lifecycle management with numerous valuable features". On the other hand, 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". OpenText UFT Digital Lab is most compared with Appium, Perfecto, AWS Device Farm, Sauce Labs and Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Selenium HQ. 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.
