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."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The solution is free to use."
"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 feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"The pricing could be improved."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"It takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
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.
