ACCELQ Automate vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

"The platform contributes to faster test release cycles."

"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."

"In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints."

"I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective."

"The most valuable feature is stability."

"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."

"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."

"OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."

"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."

"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."

"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."

"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."

"The pricing could be improved."

"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."

"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

"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 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."

"I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized."

"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 quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

"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."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."