We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Tricentis Tosca based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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 automation of test cases."
"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 UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"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 most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The solution has plenty of features compared to other solutions."
"The technical support is good, we were satisfied."
"The use of automation is most valuable."
"To me, what stands out the most about Tricentis Tosca is that even if I'm not a technical tester, I could pick up on how to use it very quickly because of the mechanisms of the tool, for example, its scanning mechanism. I'm not so technical, but I'm able to maneuver through Tricentis Tosca and derive capability. It's a user-friendly tool. It's not very complex."
"We have multiple applications, and it supports parallel execution. It has mobile automation."
"Compared to other tools we have been looking at, you don't have to be a programmer to operate it, though it helps. It also a product that can be used by business people."
"I am impressed with the product's script test."
"The solution is script-less, so you don't need IT knowledge to use the solution in an operational way. This is the most valuable feature. It's also only one of two or three tools that can do good automation on SAP, and in my opinion, it's the best of those."
"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."
"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."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"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."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"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 think the downside would be licensing costs which are very high."
"The solution is expensive compared to other tools in the market."
"I would like a better user interface."
"Many times when we have raised a ticket, we did not get an urgent response."
"It requires some coding customization that requires expertise."
"While the initial setup was straightforward, we required assistance with the configuration to ensure that everything was done correctly."
"The user management could improve in Tricentis Tosca because it is confusing. It would be better to have it in one place. Having to add it to the cloud and to a specific project can be a mess."
"It can be quite expensive."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 14th in Test Automation Tools with 34 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Test Automation Tools with 96 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. 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 Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish, Original Software TestDrive and Selenium HQ, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio, Worksoft Certify, Postman and SmartBear TestComplete. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing 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.
