OpenText UFT One vs Testim comparison

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

"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."

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

"It is a stable solution."

"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."

"It's simple to set up."

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."

"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."

"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."

"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."

"The product is easy to use."

"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."

"The feature I like most about Testim is the record and playback capability, which does not require writing a lot of code."

"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."

"It is a highly stable solution."

"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."

"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."

"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."

"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."

"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."

"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."

"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."

"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."

"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."

"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."

"There is currently no room for improvement that I can identify as of now."

"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."

"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."

"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."

"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."

"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."

"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 tool's price is high."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"OpenText UFT One is a very 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."

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

"The price is reasonable."

"The solution is not expensive."

"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools."

"The tool offers a fixed pricing model for our company."