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."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."
"Integrates well with other products."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"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 of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"Easy to use and easily scalable."
"The solution is very useful for compiling existing projects and developing new projects."
"Visual Studio is highly powerful. It's probably the best software development tool on the market."
"The most valuable feature has been to store all our packages in one place including SSIS packages, SQL tables, TFS and SSR."
"Visual Studio Test Professional is a user-friendly solution."
"The documentation is easy, and it helps us solve our problems."
"Visual Studio is an exemplary integrated development environment that stands out due to its exceptional features. It allows for the seamless selection of the appropriate programming language for the specific development tasks at hand. This facilitates a swift and effortless transition between languages, providing a highly efficient development experience."
"The interface is easy to use."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"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."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"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."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"Sometimes, the product is too complex to use."
"The price could be improved."
"The tool crashes and has high memory consumption."
"It needs more integration with other tools for monitoring. Microsoft also needs to make it more modern to make it work with microservices and the cloud. It is a bit outdated currently."
"Visual Studio Test Professional needs to improve its scalability."
"Visual Studio Test Professional could improve by having better integration with external databases."
"The solution can improve the startup time."
"We would like to be able to easily integrate this solution with our continuous integration tools, such as Jenkins."
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 7th 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.
