OpenText Functional Testing and UiPath Test Cloud compete in providing functional testing solutions. OpenText appears to have the upper hand with its extensive feature compatibility, while UiPath stands out for ease of use and cost-effectiveness with strong robotic process integration.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing excels in supporting various browsers and operating systems. It is compatible with HTML5, API testing, and includes capabilities for virtualized services testing. Users appreciate its robust compatibility across applications. UiPath Test Cloud offers user-friendly automation with quick setup and execution. It supports a wide range of technologies and focuses on simplifying the testing process for rapid deployment.
Room for Improvement: OpenText could improve browser compatibility, IDE performance, and resource utilization. Users indicate that the testing tool would benefit from a smaller footprint. UiPath Test Cloud could enhance its test manager tool and reporting features. Simplifying file management would improve user experience, addressing noted integration and storage limitations.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText focuses on on-premises deployment, with reliable but sometimes slow customer service for complex issues. UiPath Test Cloud offers flexible deployments, including public cloud and hybrid options. Its support services are praised for responsiveness, though deeper technical expertise in customer service is desired by users.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText is often considered expensive but justifiable for complex environments due to its comprehensive functionalities. Users recommend assessing licensing strategies for better ROI. UiPath Test Cloud is viewed as a cost-effective solution, offering good value for automation capabilities. Some users suggest licensing flexibility could be improved. Both solutions yield substantial ROI by enhancing automation efficiency and reducing manual testing efforts.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
After creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
They get into the meeting, understand the problem, and try to provide a solution quickly.
Support should be free, especially for product-related issues.
I would rate UiPath's support neutrally at a five.
Running them in parallel allows you to consume multiple runtime licenses and just execute the tests that don't have conflicting priorities and get through a lot of volume much quicker.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
Proper knowledge of Orchestrator and CI/CD processes makes the product truly scalable.
Scaling with UiPath Test Cloud is supported; they have the infrastructure to scale automation to meet business needs.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
UiPath Test Suite has matured over the years and is now quite stable.
It is performing better than two to three years back; significant improvements have been made for complete project delivery.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If they could add defect management, it could work independently without needing Jira.
UiPath should introduce compatibility so existing processes in Selenium or other tools can work seamlessly with UiPath Test automation.
I've noticed that adding more users impacts the speed, although nothing stops entirely.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
Our customers usually pay around 30K to 35K for five licenses, which is priced per year.
The pricing of UiPath tends to be on the higher side, which can restrict smaller companies from adopting it.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier.
What I really like about UiPath Test Suite is its ability to ensure that any changes made do not affect other functionalities.
The most valuable feature of UiPath Test Cloud that I have found is the TestManager dashboard, which integrates with Jira through Planview Tasktop.
The ability of the test suite to automate tests across a wide range of technologies is great since UiPath's background in RPA is specifically designed to automate basically any and all technologies.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| UiPath Test Cloud | 4.1% |
| OpenText Functional Testing | 7.1% |
| Other | 88.8% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 20 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 71 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 4 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 4 |
| Large Enterprise | 19 |
OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.
OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.
What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.
UiPath Test Cloud enhances test automation through agentic testing, integrating AI with human efforts for comprehensive quality assurance. It supports seamless integration with diverse tools, offering easy debugging and reduced maintenance costs with its low-code design and automation capabilities.
UiPath Test Cloud offers a unified platform facilitating automation and regression testing across applications like web frameworks and supply chain systems. Its intuitive interface integrates with tools such as Jenkins, allowing efficient workflows. While tackling mobile and automation challenges, it demands improvements in manual testing options and third-party integrations. Enhancements in file management, AI integration, and reporting are necessary for optimal performance.
What are the key features of UiPath Test Cloud?In industries like supply chain management and vendor systems, UiPath Test Cloud is implemented to ensure software stability post-updates, assisting in workflows and data handling. It supports communication with vendors while reducing time to market, even amid current challenges in mobile automation and third-party tool integration.
We monitor all Test Automation Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
