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."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"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 most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."
"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."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"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."
"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."
"The price of the solution could improve."
ACCELQ Automate is ranked 19th in Test Automation Tools with 1 review while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 15th 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 Selenium HQ.
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.
