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 is very scalable."
"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."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"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."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"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 solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The user interface is very friendly."
"One of the best documentation in the world."
"The most valuable features of Visual Studio Test Professional are the IntelliSense and the ease of adding the NuGet packages."
"Its initial setup process is easy."
"The interface is easy to use."
"Visual Studio Test Professional's most valuable feature is the rich IDE for doing code and test development."
"The solution is very stable."
"Visual Studio Test Pro is super helpful for my Microsoft app work."
"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 product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"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."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"The product must provide more automation."
"Sometimes Visual Studio is slow. It uses a lot of resources like memory and processing power. You should optimize the performance by only installing what you need on your machine. Don't install unnecessary things that will slow your machine."
"The service right now is far too expensive. You need to pay per user."
"Sometimes, the product is too complex to use."
"The performance could be faster."
"Sometimes, the solution hangs, so its performance could be improved."
"Over the years, I haven't identified any specific enhancements that I desire; Visual Studio has consistently met my requirements seamlessly and flawlessly."
"I would appreciate some enhancements in the interface, maybe adding more color options."
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 46 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, froglogic Squish and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and BrowserStack. 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.
