We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Visual Studio Test Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The stop automation is a great feature."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The ability to quickly make your own components has been valuable."
"The most valuable feature has been to store all our packages in one place including SSIS packages, SQL tables, TFS and SSR."
"The tool has highly detailed debugging features."
"Performance-wise, it is a great tool."
"The setup is easy and straightforward."
"The solution is very stable."
"The solution is easy to use and they have also integrated with Microsoft."
"It is very easy to use. You can handle a lot of things together at once in one package, which is a good point for us."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"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."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"Its UI could be better."
"Over the years, I haven't identified any specific enhancements that I desire; Visual Studio has consistently met my requirements seamlessly and flawlessly."
"Sometimes, the product is too complex to use."
"The price could be improved."
"Sometimes Visual Studio is slow. It uses a lot of resources like memory and processing power. You should optimize the performance by only installing what you need on your machine. Don't install unnecessary things that will slow your machine."
"The documents on the Microsoft website are not very useful, and they ought to make it easier to find answers."
"The vendor must release a lightweight version of the solution."
"It is not good in terms of performance. When you open Visual Studio, you have to wait for a while to process your code. It uses a lot of resources and has a lot of features. If we could disable some of the features, it would be lighter and faster to use. Nowadays, for some of the projects, we use VS Code for JavaScript or Python. VS Code is very light and easy to use, whereas, in Visual Studio, we have to wait because it takes time to compile or run a project. It has a lot of competitors in terms of performance, such as Intelligent ID. Intelligent ID is very easy to use. It has many features, and it is lighter to use than Visual Studio. In terms of error handling, sometimes, it shows an error before you finish your code, which can be improved. It would be good if it has a version for Linux. I use VS Code on Linux, but I am not sure if Visual Studio has a version for Linux."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis qTest. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Visual Studio Test Professional report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing 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.
