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."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."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"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 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 automation of test cases."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"The pricing could be improved."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"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."
"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."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
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 "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Visual Studio Test Professional, 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.