We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Selenium HQ 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."Integrates well with other products."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"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 recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"I like its simplicity."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"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."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"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 would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. 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 Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Visual Studio Test Professional, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Selenium HQ report.
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.
