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."Integrates well with other products."
"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 features are the object repository."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"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."
"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."
"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 solution is easy to use and they have also integrated with Microsoft."
"Visual Studio Test Professional is a user-friendly solution."
"The stability has always been very good."
"The documentation is easy, and it helps us solve our problems."
"Visual Studio is the easiest to use."
"I was satisfied with the support given by customer service."
"Performance-wise, it is a great tool."
"Visual Studio Test Professional's most valuable feature is the rich IDE for doing code and test development."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"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."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"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 solution can improve the startup time."
"Its UI could be better."
"Sometimes, the solution hangs, so its performance could be improved."
"It is not good in terms of performance. When you open Visual Studio, you have to wait for a while to process your code. It uses a lot of resources and has a lot of features. If we could disable some of the features, it would be lighter and faster to use. Nowadays, for some of the projects, we use VS Code for JavaScript or Python. VS Code is very light and easy to use, whereas, in Visual Studio, we have to wait because it takes time to compile or run a project. It has a lot of competitors in terms of performance, such as Intelligent ID. Intelligent ID is very easy to use. It has many features, and it is lighter to use than Visual Studio. In terms of error handling, sometimes, it shows an error before you finish your code, which can be improved. It would be good if it has a version for Linux. I use VS Code on Linux, but I am not sure if Visual Studio has a version for Linux."
"Visual Studio Test Professional needs to improve its stability."
"The service right now is far too expensive. You need to pay per user."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"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."
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 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 48 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, Original Software TestDrive and Automai AppLoader, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad and SmartBear TestComplete. 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.
