We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Perfecto 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 is very scalable."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"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 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."
"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 the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"We're working in Agile and we need results ASAP. The fact that the lab provides same-day access to new devices is extremely important to us."
"The reporting feature is really tough to find in some of the other products that are competitors. Having your CITB type dashboard, where we can see the test results and see recordings of each test that passed or failed, is probably one of the distinguishing aspects of Perfecto."
"We are able to offer a quality product that has been tested fully, which improves our customer satisfaction. That is a good thing. It has also reduced our IT infrastructure cost. We don't have to spend a lot on setting up infrastructure, which becomes redundant or obsolete very soon. It helps in offsetting that cost."
"It creates a faster production cycle and is quick to market. Things get deployed earlier because the testing happens on time. We can do a lot of panelization, so a lot of test phases can happen in a panel. People don't have to wait for a device to come to them. They can access multiple devices at the same time and do testing at the same time."
"Perfecto has affected our software quality in a good way. It has allowed us to execute on-demand and on-choice. We also track the number of issues that we find in the product. Every single day, we tag the issues that we found. For example, if something was found by automation, that means it was found by a Perfecto execution. Over time, we realized the real value in tracking those numbers. We can see now that we have clearly been finding issues earlier. It has allowed us to catch our defects earlier, thus improving the quality of our applications."
"We are continuously doing testing on different environments, devices, and platforms. It executes seamlessly on multiple devices without having any connectivity issues. It has been really helpful for us to test on cloud devices."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is that it covers all types of devices on the market allowing you to test different versions of an operating system."
"There are a whole bunch of things that I like about the solution, but I really love the interaction it has with mobile devices, the testing capabilities, as well as reporting capabilities that we get from the application. The reports are very detailed."
"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."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."
"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."
"When using devices on the cloud, it lags quite a bit at times. I know that these are real devices that are being projected on our laptop screens and monitors, but if the speed could be improved, that would be good."
"It does well for mobile testing, but when it comes to the web aspect, it is lagging a little bit in terms of execution."
"There could be some improvements done on the interface. At times, there has been a bit of a struggle when finding things on the interface. A UI revamp would be a better option in future. That UI hasn't changed much in a long time, so I think they could just make it a bit better so that people could find stuff easily and intuitively."
"We feel that Perfecto is a little slow. If they could improve on that slowness in accessing the app, when we want to click a button, that would be great because we feel the difference. An improvement in the connectivity speed is required."
"If we could run an accessibility test in Perfecto against builds, it would help us a lot. Currently, that's a very manual process for us. We haven't found a tool that can do accessibility scans for iOS and doesn't depend on engineering effort. Having a feature related to that would be really awesome for us."
"We have had some issues with performance, which is something that should be improved."
"It is slow compared to physical device testing. The interactive speed could be improved."
"One improvement would be speed of execution. If it is an iOS native app, we have noticed that the speed is a bit slower. Perfecto might need to make some improvements in this area."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Perfecto is ranked 3rd in Functional Testing Tools with 23 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Perfecto is rated 8.4. 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 Perfecto writes "Its reporting allows us to have a clear view regarding what tests have been executed". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive, whereas Perfecto is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Appium, AWS Device Farm and Katalon Studio. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Perfecto 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.
