We performed a comparison between Katalon Studio and OpenText UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The ability to build all libraries with codes and use them in many situations has been most valuable."
"The automation is very fast and you don't need to be overly proficient in coding."
"The best feature is the split up between test cases and the test object. This allows us to easily change an error."
"I like the feature where you can define a model that represents your website and then reuse the components from the model. It makes creating more test cases easy."
"The functionality of the data is very good. You can upload and disperse data using the solution."
"The best thing about the solution is that there is a record and playback functionality."
"Smart Wait and XPath healing are valuable features."
"Katalon Studio's biggest advantage is its price. It's a good tool for the price, albeit with some limitations when you compare it with tools like Tricentis Tosca."
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."
"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 most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"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 is very scalable."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"The product’s regression testing time could be reduced."
"They need to work on documentation to make it more centralized and easier to find what you are looking for."
"I would like to see improvements in how Katalon Studio works with iOS applications, especially with React Native applications."
"Katalon lacks integration with other software, including integrating other languages like .NET and PHP."
"I can say that in my company, we struggle a lot with iOS automation."
"We would like to see improved integration with various reporting tools; this would make our testing data more complete."
"I've seen that our clients are not truly aware of the power behind Katalon."
"We have been seeing some error pop-ups that are difficult to understand why they were triggered."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"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."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"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'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."
Katalon Studio is ranked 3rd in Test Automation Tools with 42 reviews while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 14th in Test Automation Tools with 34 reviews. Katalon Studio is rated 7.8, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Katalon Studio writes " Functional automation features and the recording functionality saves time but the performance and script execution is slow ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". Katalon Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Postman, OpenText UFT One, Testim and Appium, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and Selenium HQ. See our Katalon Studio vs. OpenText UFT Developer report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.