• Home
  • OpenText UFT Developer vs. ZAPTEST

OpenText UFT Developer vs ZAPTEST comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
OpenText Logo

OpenText UFT Developer

Read 34 OpenText UFT Developer reviews
3,210 views|1,945 comparisons
77% willing to recommend
ZAPTEST Logo

ZAPTEST

Read 7 ZAPTEST reviews
526 views|274 comparisons
88% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Download the complete report
Buyer's Guide
Functional Testing Tools
April 2024
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and ZAPTEST based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: April 2024).
Download the complete report
768,740 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Eitan Gold
Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection
Anonymous User
The OCR feature allows objects to be identified based on their characteristics. I miss proper help documentation.
I was able to automate an application, where object identifications have impeded any progress in automating the regression bed. With ZAPTEST, we... Read more →
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
  • "The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
  • "The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
  • "When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
  • "It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
  • "The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
  • "Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
  • "The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

    • More OpenText UFT Developer Pricing and Cost Advice →

    Information Not Available
    report
    See Which Vendors Are Best For You
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    See Recommendations
    768,740 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?
    Top Answer:There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.
    Read all 20 answers   →
    What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT D...
    Top Answer:The pricing is competitive. It is affordable and average.
    Read all 15 answers   →
    What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
    Top Answer:Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars.
    Read all 20 answers   →
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Ranking
    16th
    out of 47 in Functional Testing Tools
    Views
    3,210
    Comparisons
    1,945
    Reviews
    2
    Average Words per Review
    452
    Rating
    8.0
    31st
    out of 47 in Functional Testing Tools
    Views
    526
    Comparisons
    274
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
    Learn More
    OpenText
    ZAPTEST
    Overview
    With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.
    ZAPTEST is software test automation solution for testing applications cross-platform. ZAPTEST allows testing any GUI based software on any modern OS mobile or conventional that includes iOS; Android; WinMo; Blackberry; Windows; Mac; and Linux. ZAP 1Script technology allows users to script test procedure once and execute it on any correspondent application on any platform and environment. ZAP MultiRun technology offers execution of the same test script on multiple workstations and mobile devices at once, and expedites time to test execution. zapFARM offers mobile and conventional device management, by using distributed and multi-site devices and management of devices and users. ZAPTEST is software test automation solution for testing applications cross-platform. ZAPTEST allows testing of any GUI based software on any modern OS, mobile or conventional including iOS; Android; WinMo; Blackberry; Windows; Mac; and Linux, as well as supports testing of Agile and CI development. ZAP main technologies are ZAPTEST; ZAP-fiX; MultiRun; and zapFARM With over 15 years of industry experience implementing test automation processes ZAP also offers professional help to allows enterprises with testing best practices implementing ZAPTEST. Using ZAPTEST test automation teams reducing time to test development and maintenance, expedite test execution cross-platform and manage devices under test remotely within organization
    Sample Customers
    Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
    AT&T, Ally Financial, Inc. Standard & Poors, Comcast, Boeing Employee Credit Union, Nordstroms, Bank of New Zealand, Aviva France, Delta Airlines, First National Bank of South Africa, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, American Well, SuperValu, 24 Hour Fitness, Inc., Lexis Nexis, Cspire Wireless, GE Intelligent Systems, Accenture, Shelter Mutual Insurance, Agco
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Comms Service Provider12%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm22%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Government13%
    Manufacturing Company8%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business5%
    Midsize Enterprise24%
    Large Enterprise71%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise76%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business33%
    Midsize Enterprise11%
    Large Enterprise56%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business25%
    Midsize Enterprise7%
    Large Enterprise67%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    April 2024
    Download Free Report
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    DOWNLOAD NOW
    768,740 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while ZAPTEST is ranked 31st in Functional Testing Tools. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while ZAPTEST 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 ZAPTEST writes "The OCR feature allows objects to be identified based on their characteristics. I miss proper help documentation". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive, whereas ZAPTEST is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Automation Anywhere (AA) and ReadyAPI.

    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.