OpenText UFT One vs Qt Squish comparison

"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."

"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."

"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

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

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

"It's simple to set up."

"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."

"I like the dashboard. It's virtual, and you can see the customer results. I can do it at night and in the morning. I think it also automatically emails results."

"The initial setup process is straightforward."

"froglogic Squish is one of the most desired solutions if you are having a Qt as a framework and if you are looking at GUI regression testing. froglogic is a part of Qt as a company."

"This product can work with QT applications and cross-cut from them on Windows or Mac."

"I find it very user-friendly and easy to start working with. The main benefit for me is that it allows testing applications developed in the Qt language. This capability makes Squish a game-changer, as it's the only tool I've found that enables automation for applications written in Qt. I appreciate three main aspects. Firstly, the documentation is excellent. Secondly, I value the way the tool efficiently locates elements during testing. These are the two aspects I particularly like."

"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."

"They should include AI-based testing features."

"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."

"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."

"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."

"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."

"The solution does not have proper scripting."

"There had been a lot of improvements with froglogic Squish already. There were some scenarios in which this particular solution was available in different flavors. They have pulled everything together in one solution. There were some monitoring systems, which were missing out from the solution earlier. They have a centralized dashboard for monitoring the test cases and their execution. It's a full-blown solution, there are not many glitches in terms of something missing out of the package."

"I'm relatively new to Squish, so I'm not familiar with all its pros and cons. Currently, I haven't identified any specific improvements. However, one feature I miss is Git integration within the tool. In my previous experience with Selenium and Python in PyCharm, it was straightforward to create and review changes before pushing them. I haven't found a similar option in Squish, and having an integrated tool for managing conflicts would be beneficial in certain scenarios where collaboration is involved."

"ID could be improved with suggestions of names, variables or class."

"The price could be better."

"The platform could be improved by implementing some basic functionalities that are frequently used, such as login procedures and screen handling when multiple screens are used at the workplace."

"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."

"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."

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

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"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 solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

"It's an expensive solution."

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

"It is expensive."

"The platform is highly-priced."

"The price could be better. I believe each developer license costs about 6000 or 7000 Euros per year."