We performed a comparison between ACCELQ Automate and OpenText UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Test Automation Tools."The platform contributes to faster test release cycles."
"The solution is very scalable."
"Integrates well with other products."
"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."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"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 platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"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."
"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 integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
ACCELQ Automate is ranked 19th in Test Automation Tools with 1 review while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 15th in Test Automation Tools with 34 reviews. ACCELQ Automate is rated 9.0, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of ACCELQ Automate writes "Provides good stability and a valuable object identification feature ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". ACCELQ Automate is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, Eggplant Test, SmartBear TestComplete and Functionize, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Selenium HQ.
See our list of best Test Automation 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.
