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."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."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"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 me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"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 would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"The pricing could be improved."
"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."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
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, Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, HCL OneTest and Worksoft Certify, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and Selenium HQ. 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.