Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

Digital.ai and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. Digital.ai is ranked #21 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText is ranked #11 with an average rating of 7.8. Digital.ai holds a 0.4% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText’s 2.4% mindshare. Additionally, 66% of Digital.ai users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 77% of OpenText users who would recommend it.
Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Read 3 Digital.ai Continuous Testing reviews
  • 282 Views
  • 189 Comparison Views
66% willing to recommend
OpenText UFT Developer
Read 38 OpenText UFT Developer reviews
  • 1,746 Views
  • 1,210 Comparison Views
77% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText UFT Developer and Digital.ai Continuous Testing compete in the software testing landscape. Digital.ai Continuous Testing holds a stronger position due to its expansive feature set, while OpenText UFT Developer is preferred for competitive pricing and support.

Features:OpenText UFT Developer offers diverse automation capabilities in web, mobile, and API testing environments. Digital.ai Continuous Testing integrates seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines and supports a wide range of testing frameworks and platforms. This positions Digital.ai as superior in supporting agile and DevOps practices.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service:OpenText UFT Developer provides straightforward deployment processes and effective support, enhancing user interaction. Digital.ai Continuous Testing's cloud deployment model allows for easy scaling and flexibility, supported by a responsive customer service framework, giving it an edge in dynamic environments.

Pricing and ROI:OpenText UFT Developer is attractive due to its lower initial setup costs. Digital.ai Continuous Testing has a higher setup cost, but its extensive feature set delivers more favorable long-term ROI, catering to organizations focused on comprehensive testing in agile and DevOps settings.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText UFT Developer Report (Updated: April 2025).
Buyer's Guide
Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText UFT Developer
April 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 851,174 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
21st
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (8th), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (2nd)
OpenText UFT Developer
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
11th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Digital.ai Continuous Testing is 0.4%, down from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT Developer is 2.4%, down from 3.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Alan Chiou - PeerSpot reviewer
Has Mobile Studio feature which can generate scripts
The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I submit a ticket to technical support, but they often have to fix it in the next version.
Read full review
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.
Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most useful feature for me is Mobile Studio. It has a UI where I can click on elements, and it generates a script for me. Mobile Studio can generate code from testing steps. I'm using Python with it."
"Experitest is one of the only companies to offer a real device on the cloud to perform testing. They also provide quality documentations that help you navigate and maximize the solution."
"The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
More OpenText UFT Developer pros
 

Cons

"The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I submit a ticket to technical support, but they often have to fix it in the next version."
"I have been automating tests for many years on many things but not on mobile devices. The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before. I spent the first two weeks just getting it started. It would be good to have some video explanation of how to use it on your devices and get started. Their online documentation is quite good and extensive, but it would be quite good to have some end-to-end examples demonstrated."
"I would also like to see more videos and descriptions that could make installation more efficient."
"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"The pricing could be improved."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"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."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"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."
More OpenText UFT Developer cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker."
"We make monthly payments. The cost is dependent on the number of devices we intend to support."
"It is quite fairly priced, but it really depends on your budget. It is somewhere in the mid-range of products. It is not free and it is not QGP that nearly costs a whole house. You pay for the number of users who require access to execute the tests."
"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."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"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."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
More OpenText UFT Developer pricing and cost advice
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
851,174 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Retailer
11%
Insurance Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker.
See all answers
What needs improvement with Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I...
See all answers
What is your primary use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
I'm using Digital.ai Continuous Testing to create and test a mobile application. We're developing and testing a mobile app.
See all answers
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?
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.
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
See all answers
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object.
See all answers
 

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs Digital.ai Continuous Testing Logo
BrowserStack vs Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Compared 49% of the time
Perfecto vs Digital.ai Continuous Testing Logo
Perfecto vs Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Compared 27% of the time
LambdaTest vs Digital.ai Continuous Testing Logo
LambdaTest vs Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Compared 24% of the time
More Digital.ai Continuous Testing Competitors
OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Developer Logo
OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Developer
Compared 57% of the time
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT Developer Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT Developer
Compared 19% of the time
UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT Developer Logo
UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT Developer
Compared 4% of the time
IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText UFT Developer Logo
IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText UFT Developer
Compared 3% of the time
OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Developer Logo
OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Developer
Compared 3% of the time
More OpenText UFT Developer Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
ConformIQ Creator vs. Digital.ai Continuous Testing
April 2025
Digital.ai Continuous Testing reportDownload Digital.ai Continuous Testing product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT Developer
April 2025
OpenText UFT Developer reportDownload OpenText UFT Developer product report
 

Also Known As

Experitest Seetest, Experitest
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

Experitest's continuous testing solutions enable enterprises to reduce risk and provide their customers satisfying, error-free experiences across all devices and browsers. They seamlessly integrate with best-in-class tools throughout the DevOps pipeline allowing organizations to rapidly deliver highly protected, quality applications at-speed and at-scale.

Digital.ai
With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.
OpenText
 

Sample Customers

Samsung, American Express, Barclays, China Mobile, Citi, Cisco, McAfee
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Buyer's Guide
Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText UFT Developer
April 2025
Free Report: Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText UFT Developer
Find out what your peers are saying about Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText UFT Developer and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
851,174 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText UFT Developer report.
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.