OpenText UFT One vs Qt Squish comparison

"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."

"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's simple to set up."

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

"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."

"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."

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

"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."

"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."

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

"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."

"The initial setup process is straightforward."

"Squish is integrated with Qt, which enables us to test the user interface effectively."

"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."

"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

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

"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."

"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."

"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."

"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."

"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."

"The price could be better."

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

"We encountered issues with the embedded environment and building for the Qt version."

"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."

"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."

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

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

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

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

"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

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

"The platform is highly-priced."

"It is expensive."

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