Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText UFT One vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
94
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (4th)
Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
17th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
8th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
17th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 9.6%, up from 9.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.5%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results
With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.
Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
Very good performance and load testing capabilities
There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
 

Cons

"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"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."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool's price is high."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"It's an expensive solution."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Government
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Telerik Test Studio?
Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy. In addition, sometimes, tests used to fail intermittently. These were the two disadvantages.
What advice do you have for others considering Telerik Test Studio?
Instead of Telerik Test Studio, I'd recommend writing test cases in .Net so that in the future, if you move away from Telerik Test Studio to another tool, it would be easier for you. Your current c...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT One vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.