We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Digital Lab and Visual Studio Test Professional 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."There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"The product is easy to use."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
"Visual Studio Test Pro is super helpful for my Microsoft app work."
"The most valuable features are tools like IntelliSense and ReSharper."
"Its initial setup process is easy."
"The tool is flexible and easy to manage. We use it since it is scalable and easy to use. It integrates with solutions."
"It is a good and user-friendly tool."
"I was satisfied with the support given by customer service."
"Visual Studio is the easiest to use."
"The debugging feature is valuable."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"It needs more integration with other tools for monitoring. Microsoft also needs to make it more modern to make it work with microservices and the cloud. It is a bit outdated currently."
"Sometimes, the solution hangs, so its performance could be improved."
"There are too many features with the product and I would like there to be less."
"Visual Studio Test Professional needs to improve its stability."
"In Visual Studio we still don't have anything which can pinpoint memory leaks on a certain code line."
"The product must provide more automation."
"The solution's documentation could be improved for beginners."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked 20th in Functional Testing Tools with 16 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. OpenText UFT Digital Lab is rated 7.4, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Digital Lab writes "Robust solution for application lifecycle management with numerous valuable features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". OpenText UFT Digital Lab is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Appium, Perfecto, AWS Device Farm and Sauce Labs, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText UFT One. See our OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. Visual Studio Test Professional report.
See our list of best Functional 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.
