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."The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"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 for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"It is a good automation tool."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"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."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"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."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"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."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
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 "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive, 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.
