We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Functional Tester and OpenText UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"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 product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"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."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.2, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Selenium HQ, Katalon Studio, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca and Worksoft Certify, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive.
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.
