We performed a comparison between Appium and OpenText UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Regression Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's an open-source solution with a very large community and available documentation."
"The way Appium server interacts with mobile apps is fantastic. It provides all the information about the elements inside the app, Android as well as iOS. I can interact with the element quickly, just type some text or get some text values from the element - whether it's a drop-down, or web text, or a native element."
"We do not need to pay for the solution. It’s free."
"We develop apps using the React Native framework, and Appium integrates well for testing those apps. The Appium automation framework also has good integration with GitHub Actions and plenty of other tools and frameworks, including BrowserStack."
"I haven't explored other solutions in this particular area, but what I like best about Appium is the fact that it shares functions with Selenium. The extension of Selenium functions allows me to use all of the methods that exist in that domain, and it just makes it simpler for me. I've been using Selenium for some time as well, so using Appium just seems like a natural fit for me."
"The latest versions of the solution are stable."
"The solution is stable."
"Obviously because of automation, it reduces manual testing efforts."
"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."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"Integrates well with other products."
"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."
"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."
"Appium has problems with automated validations following iOS updates, causing us to have to validate manually."
"An application developed on the Unity platform, such as a gaming application, objects are moving in that case. Interacting with those elements is still lacking in Appium. Appium doesn't have the internal library to play with the Unity platform. That is a huge lack right now."
"Configuration-wise, there is a lot of room for improvement."
"The challenging part with Appium is that installation can be a bit tricky. It can be challenging to set up in Android versus iOS environments."
"One thing which can be really helpful is that there is some kind of a recorder made available rather than scripting everything."
"Image recognition could be improved. We have some images in our mobile applications. It should be able to run from the cloud, so we can automate the catcher."
"Appium could improve by enabling record and run techniques similar to what they have in other licensing tools, such as Micro Focus. We have to all write the code, and then we can proceed."
"The tool needs to add a dependency manager."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"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."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
Appium is ranked 5th in Regression Testing Tools with 25 reviews while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. Appium is rated 8.0, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Appium writes "It's easy to launch applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". Appium is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Perfecto, Xamarin Platform and Apache JMeter, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive. See our Appium vs. OpenText UFT Developer report.
See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Regression 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.
