OpenText UFT One vs TestingWhiz comparison

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

"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

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

"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."

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

"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."

"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."

"TestingWhiz is a low code, no code tool with integration facilities, such as with Jira, and can be used over the cloud."

"We'd like it to have less scripting."

"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."

"The solution is expensive."

"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."

"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."

"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."

"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 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."

"Some features need to be implemented based on customer customization requests, which are currently not available."

"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 of the product is an issue."

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

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

"The price is reasonable."

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

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"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.""