We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer 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 solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"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."
"Integrates well with other products."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The documentation is easy, and it helps us solve our problems."
"Visual Studio is the easiest to use."
"Code testing is the most valuable feature of this solution for developing software."
"The product is good to create big or small projects fastly. It is one of the leaders in the area."
"The initial setup is easy. It's easy to configure."
"The ability to quickly make your own components has been valuable."
"The setup is easy and straightforward."
"The most valuable feature has been to store all our packages in one place including SSIS packages, SQL tables, TFS and SSR."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."
"The solution’s stability could be improved."
"Its UI could be better."
"We would like to be able to easily integrate this solution with our continuous integration tools, such as Jenkins."
"The solution can improve the startup time."
"The database administration could be better; you should be able to choose new tools with the development environment in Visual Studio. It could be easier to use."
"The server that we use is very slow so that is concerning for us."
"I would appreciate some enhancements in the interface, maybe adding more color options."
"The tool crashes and has high memory consumption."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 48 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. 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 Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and Automai AppLoader, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad and SmartBear TestComplete. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Visual Studio Test Professional report.
See our list of best Functional 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.
