We performed a comparison between IBM DevOps Test UI and OpenText UFT Developer 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."IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"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 feature is the automation of test cases."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"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."
"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."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"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."
IBM DevOps Test UI is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. IBM DevOps Test UI is rated 7.2, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of IBM DevOps Test UI writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". IBM DevOps Test UI is most compared with Katalon Studio, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ and Worksoft Certify, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and froglogic Squish. See our IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText UFT Developer 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.
