We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Integrates well with other products."
"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 features are the object repository."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"This company offers end-to-end capabilities for test suite creation and execution. One feature that I particularly appreciate is the tagging system. Tags are highly valuable, as they allow you to assign tags to your test cases. When there's an impact in a specific area, you can search for and run all test cases associated with that tag. I find this functionality very useful."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"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."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"The integration tools could be better."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 15th in Test Automation Tools with 34 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 72 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and Selenium HQ, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
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.