We performed a comparison between HeadSpin and OpenText UFT Developer 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 of the product are the performance parameters it gives us."
"The most valuable feature of HeadSpin it's the integration with other solutions. It is great. I can search for an element or do a quick debugging on the application right on HeadSpin. It's very useful."
"It has an interesting feature called AV box testing. A lot of companies that are in the OTT segment don't really understand what their streaming is like. They can't test for streaming quality. There are restrictions where you cannot simulate live streaming. For example, on Netflix, you can't simulate how a movie is being streamed on a remote device. That's why HeadSpin has got this AV box testing feature. It is a patented feature. They send an AV box to your location, and you can test live streaming, which is something that no other company does."
"The technical support is really helpful because we can set up direct calls with them if we want to. We can use Zoom or Google Meet to interact with them directly, and if there is an issue in our system, they will help us by reproducing the issue in their machines and trying to figure out a solution. The support is really smooth, and we like that they're very supportive."
"The most valuable feature is that this is the first connected intelligence all-in-one platform."
"The initial setup of HeadSpin was very easy and user-friendly. It was easy to configure and write a script."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"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 is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"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 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."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"HeadSpin could improve on the user interface because it is very poor. The checks that are done on the iOS devices are very difficult, but for Android, it runs great. For all iOS devices, the user interface and how it interacts with the device are very poor."
"They should automate their onboarding. A lot of things are still manual. They can create a video assistant or something like that to completely automate the entire process."
"Sometimes, devices go offline and some features are not functioning on some devices, specifically on iOS."
"Support and pricing could be improved."
"If you want to do some testing or check the devices manually or check the application in a particular device manually, it is really laggy. That's a disappointment because sometimes we would like to do manual testing when our local devices are not available."
"HeadSpin needs to improve the hardware. With the mobile, the battery life reduces and must be continuously charged."
"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."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"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 the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"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."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"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."
HeadSpin is ranked 19th in Functional Testing Tools with 6 reviews while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. HeadSpin is rated 8.0, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of HeadSpin writes "It fulfills everything from automation to manual performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". HeadSpin is most compared with Perfecto, Sauce Labs, BrowserStack, pCloudy and Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive. See our HeadSpin vs. OpenText UFT Developer 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.