Both OpenText Functional Testing and UiPath Test Cloud compete in the functional testing category. UiPath Test Cloud seems to have the upper hand due to its flexibility and ease of use, particularly in terms of automation across various platforms and seamless integration into CI/CD pipelines.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing supports a wide range of platforms and environments, providing compatibility with desktop-based applications. Its versatile object recognition and built-in support for GUI, API, and mobile testing are appreciated. UiPath Test Cloud provides advanced integration capabilities, allowing seamless connection with multiple lifecycle tools, and supports dynamic testing environments, reducing manual intervention through advanced automation features.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing users desire enhanced browser compatibility and improved system performance, focusing on memory usage and processing speed. They also seek better support for modern development environments. UiPath Test Cloud could enhance dashboard visualization and deployment ease for complex scenarios. Enhancements in test case handling and integration with more frameworks are suggested.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing supports primarily on-premises deployments with limited cloud options, presenting scalability challenges. Its customer service receives mixed reviews, with occasional delays. UiPath Test Cloud offers varied cloud deployment options, including public and hybrid, ensuring scalability and easier updates. It receives positive feedback for customer support, with quick response times.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is considered expensive, with high licensing costs. Its compatibility with a broad range of technologies can justify the price for corporations needing extensive coverage. UiPath Test Cloud, also priced on the higher end, offers flexible licensing and excellent return on resources by accelerating test automation and reducing overhead, making it cost-effective for users.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
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.
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.
It is performing better than two to three years back; significant improvements have been made for complete project delivery.
UiPath Test Suite has matured over the years and is now quite stable.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
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.
There might be better integrations within those test softwares with tools such as Jira and Atlassian, and potentially better test case management.
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.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
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.
The best features of OpenText Functional Testing include descriptive programming, the ability to add objects in the repository, and its ease of use for UI compared to other tools.
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.
The most valuable feature of UiPath Test Cloud that I have found is the TestManager dashboard, which integrates with Jira through Planview Tasktop.
What I really like about UiPath Test Suite is its ability to ensure that any changes made do not affect other functionalities.
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.
