We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Selenium HQ 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."One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"The pricing could be improved."
"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"The reporting part can be better."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Visual Studio Test Professional, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Selenium HQ 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.
