Top 6 Alternatives to UFT One (formerly QTP) for VBScript Testing

Introduction and context

UFT One, formerly known as QuickTest Professional (QTP), has a long history in the functional test automation space. It originated at Mercury Interactive and was later acquired and evolved through HP, Micro Focus, and now OpenText. Over the years, UFT One established itself as a go-to enterprise solution for automating desktop and web application tests on Windows. Its hallmark was an approachable record-and-playback experience paired with VBScript for scripting, a rich object repository, and robust support for commercial technologies and legacy stacks that are still common in large organizations.

UFT One became popular for several reasons:

• It provided an integrated IDE and object recognition engine that made it practical to automate complex enterprise GUIs.

• VBScript lowered the barrier to entry for manual testers transitioning into automation.

• It offered a broad feature set with support for web UI, Windows desktop apps, data-driven tests, and integrations into CI/CD pipelines.

• Enterprises valued its vendor support, documentation, and alignment with regulated environments.

Its core strengths—broad test automation capabilities, modern workflow support, and CI/CD integrations—helped it achieve wide adoption. Yet, the testing landscape has shifted. Teams are building cloud-native apps, expanding mobile coverage, standardizing on JavaScript or Python, and seeking SaaS-first solutions that reduce tooling maintenance. As a result, even teams that rely on UFT One are exploring alternatives—sometimes to complement UFT One, and sometimes to replace it—especially when they need cross-platform execution, mobile-first coverage, or a move away from VBScript.

This guide walks through six notable alternatives and how they compare, so you can assess trade-offs with clarity.

Overview: top alternatives to UFT One

Here are the top 6 alternatives for UFT One (formerly QTP):

• LoadRunner

• Mabl

• Repeato

• TestCafe Studio

• TestComplete

• Waldo

Note: If strict VBScript compatibility is a must, TestComplete is the closest drop-in alternative among these options. The others focus on low-code or different languages, or target different testing layers.

Why look for UFT One alternatives?

Even satisfied UFT One users sometimes consider complementary or replacement tools. Common reasons include:

• Language and skills alignment

• Platform scope and flexibility

• Licensing and total cost of ownership

• Test maintainability and flakiness

• Cloud-native execution and scaling

• Specialized testing needs (mobile or performance)

Detailed breakdown of alternatives

1) LoadRunner

What it is and who built it

• LoadRunner is a performance and load testing platform designed for web, API, and protocol-level testing. It has a long enterprise pedigree and is now part of the OpenText portfolio (formerly Micro Focus).

What makes it different

• While UFT One is oriented to functional UI/regression testing, LoadRunner focuses on system performance under load. It simulates virtual users at protocol or browser levels, correlates dynamic values, and integrates with monitoring and APM tools to help you find bottlenecks.

Core strengths

• Scalable load testing for web, APIs, and a wide range of protocols.

• Strong integration with monitoring and observability tools for end-to-end performance analysis.

• Mature correlation and parameterization features for realistic user behavior.

• Support for enterprise scenarios and SLAs, with robust reporting.

• Flexible deployment options to run large-scale tests.

How it compares to UFT One

• Different testing layer: LoadRunner is not a functional UI test tool; it complements UFT One by focusing on performance and scalability rather than functional correctness.

• Language/tech: LoadRunner scripts are typically in C or proprietary formats, not VBScript.

• When to prefer it: If your primary need is capacity planning, stress testing, and measuring end-to-end performance metrics under load, LoadRunner is purpose-built and more effective than a UI-focused tool.

• When to keep UFT One: If you need functional regression and GUI automation for desktop and web apps, UFT One is still relevant; LoadRunner would be an additional tool, not a replacement.

Best for

• Performance engineers and DevOps teams running stress, load, and endurance tests.

Potential considerations

• Expertise required: Effective performance testing demands specialized skills (workload modeling, correlation, analysis).

• Resource usage: Large-scale runs can be resource-intensive and require careful planning and infrastructure.

2) Mabl

What it is and who built it

• Mabl is a low-code, AI-assisted end-to-end testing platform for web and API testing. It is a SaaS-first tool focused on simplifying authoring, maintenance, and execution at scale.

What makes it different

• Mabl emphasizes self-healing, low-code authoring, and cloud-native execution. It reduces the maintenance burden typical of UI test suites and integrates well into modern CI/CD pipelines.

Core strengths

• Broad test automation capabilities for web and API with a low-code experience.

• Self-healing locators that help reduce flaky failures when the UI changes.

• First-class CI/CD integration for cloud execution and parallelization.

• Centralized reporting and analytics across runs, branches, and environments.

• Visual testing and regression insights to catch UI changes proactively.

How it compares to UFT One

• Language/tech: Mabl is low-code and not VBScript-based. If VBScript continuity is required, Mabl is not a drop-in replacement.

• Setup and maintenance: As a SaaS-first platform, Mabl can be faster to set up and scale than on-prem desktop tooling. Test maintenance is reduced via self-healing compared to manual object repository updates.

• Platform scope: Mabl targets web and API, not desktop applications. UFT One remains stronger for Windows desktop automation.

• CI/CD fit: Mabl’s cloud-native approach can simplify scaling and scheduling runs in pipelines. UFT One also integrates with CI/CD, but tends to rely on managed infrastructure or dedicated Windows agents.

Best for

• Teams automating end-to-end flows across browsers and platforms (for web and API), especially those adopting a SaaS-first testing strategy.

Potential considerations

• May require setup and maintenance; test flakiness can still occur if tests are poorly structured.

• Some use cases with highly dynamic or custom components may require careful locator strategies and test design.

• If on-prem requirements are strict, verify deployment and data controls.

3) Repeato

What it is and who built it

• Repeato is a mobile UI testing tool for iOS and Android. It uses computer vision to drive codeless automation and improve resilience against UI changes.

What makes it different

• Unlike code-centric mobile testing frameworks, Repeato’s computer vision approach focuses on visual cues rather than purely DOM-like structures or accessibility identifiers. This can increase adaptability when the UI changes frequently.

Core strengths

• Computer vision-based UI automation that is resilient to UI changes.

• Broad test automation capabilities for mobile with a codeless experience.

• Integrates with modern workflows and CI/CD for continuous runs.

• Lower barrier to entry for teams without deep mobile automation coding expertise.

How it compares to UFT One

• Platform focus: Repeato is mobile-first. UFT One is strongest on desktop and web, with mobile testing typically handled via add-ons or separate tooling.

• Language/tech: Repeato is codeless/visual; it does not use VBScript. If VBScript continuity is required, Repeato is not a direct replacement.

• Maintenance: Computer vision can reduce locator fragility, but tests still need careful design to avoid flakiness.

• Fit: If your primary challenge is reliable iOS/Android automation and your team prefers a low-code approach, Repeato can be a strong complement or alternative for mobile-specific needs.

Best for

• Teams automating end-to-end flows on mobile platforms (iOS and Android) seeking codeless, resilient automation.

Potential considerations

• May require setup and maintenance; flaky behavior is still possible with poorly structured tests or unstable visual cues.

• Complex gestures, animations, or rapidly changing visuals can require careful calibration and review.

4) TestCafe Studio

What it is and who built it

• TestCafe Studio is the commercial, codeless IDE variant of TestCafe, developed by DevExpress. It focuses on end-to-end web testing with recorder-based authoring and a guided UI.

What makes it different

• TestCafe Studio provides a codeless workflow on top of a proven, developer-friendly engine that does not rely on WebDriver. It aims to reduce setup friction and streamline cross-browser test creation.

Core strengths

• Codeless test creation for web UI, reducing the barrier to entry for non-developers.

• Broad test automation capabilities for modern web apps, with automatic waits and stable execution.

• Integrates with CI/CD and supports headless and parallel runs.

• Cross-browser coverage and a simplified toolchain compared to Selenium/WebDriver stacks.

How it compares to UFT One

• Platform scope: TestCafe Studio is web-only. UFT One covers both web and Windows desktop apps.

• Language/tech: TestCafe Studio emphasizes codeless authoring in the Studio UI; in the coded ecosystem, JavaScript/TypeScript is used. It is not VBScript-based.

• Setup and maintenance: Typically easier to install and run across machines; test stability is aided by automatic waits. UFT One requires Windows-centric setup and maintenance.

• Fit: If your apps are primarily web-based and your team wants a simpler, cross-platform authoring experience (with or without code), TestCafe Studio is a practical choice.

Best for

• Teams automating web end-to-end flows who prefer codeless authoring and seamless CI/CD integration.

Potential considerations

• May require setup and maintenance; tests can be flaky if poorly structured, especially for highly dynamic SPAs without solid testing patterns.

• Desktop automation is out of scope; organizations with Windows desktop apps may need a second tool.

5) TestComplete

What it is and who built it

• TestComplete is a codeless/scripted end-to-end test automation tool by SmartBear. It supports desktop, web, and mobile testing, with record/playback and scripting options.

What makes it different

• Among commercial tools, TestComplete stands out for supporting multiple scripting languages, including JavaScript, Python, and notably VBScript—making it the closest option for teams that want to keep VBScript.

Core strengths

• Broad test automation capabilities across desktop, web, and mobile.

• Record/playback and keyword-driven testing for fast authoring.

• Scripting in JavaScript, Python, VBScript, and DelphiScript to fit team preferences.

• Integrates with CI/CD and supports distributed/parallel execution.

• Mature object recognition and test management features.

How it compares to UFT One

• Language/tech: TestComplete is one of the few mainstream tools that still supports VBScript. This makes migrating existing VBScript skills and patterns significantly easier than with most alternatives.

• Platform scope: Similar to UFT One in breadth—web, desktop, and mobile support—with a modern IDE and flexible scripting choices.

• Setup and maintenance: Like UFT One, TestComplete is a desktop-installed tool. Both can require careful test design to avoid flakiness.

• Fit: If VBScript continuity is a major requirement, TestComplete is the most natural alternative to evaluate first. It also appeals to teams wanting to gradually move from VBScript to JavaScript or Python without changing tools.

Best for

• Teams automating end-to-end flows across browsers and platforms, especially those wishing to retain VBScript or offer multiple language options.

Potential considerations

• May require setup and maintenance; test flakiness can arise if tests are not well structured.

• Licensing and infrastructure planning remain important for scaling execution.

6) Waldo

What it is and who built it

• Waldo is a no-code mobile UI testing platform for iOS and Android. It provides a visual recorder and cloud-based execution environment designed to simplify mobile test authoring and scaling.

What makes it different

• Waldo’s no-code approach and fully managed cloud runs reduce the operational burden of maintaining device farms, SDKs, and build pipelines for mobile test execution.

Core strengths

• Broad test automation capabilities for mobile with a highly accessible, no-code experience.

• Cloud execution for faster setup, parallelism, and easier CI/CD integration.

• Visual insights and collaboration features that streamline debugging and triage.

• Automated stability features that reduce maintenance overhead.

How it compares to UFT One

• Platform focus: Waldo is mobile-first. UFT One is centered on desktop and web (with mobile often handled via add-ons or separate products).

• Language/tech: Waldo is codeless and not VBScript-based. If preserving VBScript is essential, Waldo is not a direct replacement.

• Setup and maintenance: Waldo’s cloud model simplifies infrastructure compared to on-prem test rigs for mobile. UFT One’s strength remains in Windows desktop and web.

• Fit: Ideal for teams whose primary testing bottleneck is mobile E2E coverage, with minimal desire to manage device infrastructure.

Best for

• Teams automating end-to-end flows on iOS and Android with an emphasis on no-code authoring and cloud-scale execution.

Potential considerations

• May require setup and maintenance; codeless tests still need structure to avoid flakiness.

• Verify support for app-specific gestures, advanced animations, and edge device states.

Things to consider before choosing a UFT One alternative

Before committing to a new tool, align your choice with your application stack, team skills, and delivery model:

• Application under test (AUT) scope

• Language and skill alignment

• Authoring style

• Setup, hosting, and security

• Execution speed and scalability

• CI/CD integration

• Object recognition and self-healing

• Debugging and triage

• Reporting and analytics

• Cross-platform support

• Ecosystem and support

• Licensing and total cost of ownership

Conclusion

UFT One (formerly QTP) remains a powerful, widely used solution for enterprise functional testing, especially for Windows desktop and web apps. Its integrated environment, object recognition, and VBScript-based scripting have served many teams well for years. However, as engineering practices evolve, organizations are exploring tools that better fit modern stacks: cloud-native execution, mobile-first testing, codeless authoring, or alignment with popular languages like JavaScript and Python.

• If performance and scalability are your top concerns, LoadRunner is an excellent specialized companion for load and stress testing.

• If web and API automation with minimal maintenance is your goal, Mabl and TestCafe Studio offer low-code/codeless paths with strong CI/CD integration.

• If mobile E2E coverage is the bottleneck, Repeato and Waldo deliver mobile-first, codeless workflows that reduce infrastructure overhead.

• If preserving VBScript and a familiar record/playback model matters, TestComplete is the closest drop-in alternative, while also offering paths to JavaScript and Python.

In practice, many teams end up with a portfolio of tools: one for functional UI on desktop/web, one for mobile, and one for performance. Balance your choice against your AUT, team skills, and compliance constraints. A careful pilot—measuring authoring time, flakiness, execution speed, and debugging effort—will reveal which alternative best accelerates your testing without sacrificing reliability.