We performed a comparison between ACCELQ Automate and OpenText UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Test Automation Tools."The platform contributes to faster test release cycles."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"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 automation of test cases."
"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"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."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"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."
"The tool could be a little easier."
ACCELQ Automate is ranked 19th in Test Automation Tools with 1 review while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 14th in Test Automation Tools with 34 reviews. ACCELQ Automate is rated 9.0, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of ACCELQ Automate writes "Provides good stability and a valuable object identification feature ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". ACCELQ Automate is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, Eggplant Test, SmartBear TestComplete and Functionize, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive.
See our list of best Test Automation 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.
