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."The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"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 cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"It is a good automation tool."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"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."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"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."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"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."
"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 support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"I would like to see some reporting or test management tools."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 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, Original Software TestDrive and froglogic Squish, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). 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.
