We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Sauce Labs 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."The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"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 most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"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 abundance of device, platform, and browser combinations/versions that can be used in parallel."
"Sauce Lab analytics helped us to get detailed knowledge on test cases execution and logs."
"Testing across multiple devices and environments is now possible to do quickly and effectively."
"Maintaining many environments for test is a bear. These guys make it so easy with their CI integration that you can have tests going in after a few hours."
"Testing my app on cloud has really helped us with save time and resources to procure various hardware and software, and set those up."
"It helped to integrate our performance testing and UAT, which helped to deliver a bug free software for our customers."
"They offer a large number of devices and browser/operating system combinations for real device tests"
"The most valuable feature is the cross-browser feature, it has many android and iOS devices both simulators and real devices. It's easy to integrate. I also like video recording too."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"The pricing could be improved."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"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 parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"Another feature that could still be improved on is more error clarity. Sometimes when running automated scripts the test will fail on the device side instead of the script and errors only show a 500 try again message instead of a detailed script that could of a been a timeout error from the code."
"Lacks the ability to start multiple tests simultaneously."
"Another aspect that could be improved is having the virtual devices boot up a little quicker. Sometimes we wait up to a minute before a device is available. It would be nice if that was 30 seconds or so."
"An image comparison would be a nice feature to include in the Sauce Labs product."
"Sauce Labs needs to be improved in the different platforms for farm testing, like iOS and Android farm testing and farm testing web browsers."
"We have had some issues with the Sauce Connect Proxy on our Jenkins servers failing to start, which makes the optimal CI/CD pipeline come to a halt."
"Latency, due to Sauce Labs being a cloud-based solution, has been a concern. We work in different continents and countries, but last time I checked, Sauce Labs was only offering two data centers, one in the EU and another in the US. If you're not in either of those two places, you would have latency and issues running your test cases."
"We had some specific features that we opened tickets on, although they were not earth-shattering. For example, the way the menus scroll could be improved because it does not have a bar, the way that people are used to, where you can move up and down."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Sauce Labs is ranked 11th in Functional Testing Tools with 113 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Sauce Labs is rated 8.8. 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 Sauce Labs writes "Robust documentation, helpful support representative, good licensing model". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and froglogic Squish, whereas Sauce Labs is most compared with BrowserStack, Perfecto, LambdaTest, OpenText UFT One and Bitbar. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Sauce Labs report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation 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.
