OpenText UFT Developer vs Qt Squish comparison

"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."

"The most valuable features are the object repository."

"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."

"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 of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."

"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."

"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's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."

"I like the dashboard. It's virtual, and you can see the customer results. I can do it at night and in the morning. I think it also automatically emails results."

"This product can work with QT applications and cross-cut from them on Windows or Mac."

"The initial setup process is straightforward."

"I find it very user-friendly and easy to start working with. The main benefit for me is that it allows testing applications developed in the Qt language. This capability makes Squish a game-changer, as it's the only tool I've found that enables automation for applications written in Qt. I appreciate three main aspects. Firstly, the documentation is excellent. Secondly, I value the way the tool efficiently locates elements during testing. These are the two aspects I particularly like."

"froglogic Squish is one of the most desired solutions if you are having a Qt as a framework and if you are looking at GUI regression testing. froglogic is a part of Qt as a company."

"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."

"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."

"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

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

"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."

"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."

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

"I'm relatively new to Squish, so I'm not familiar with all its pros and cons. Currently, I haven't identified any specific improvements. However, one feature I miss is Git integration within the tool. In my previous experience with Selenium and Python in PyCharm, it was straightforward to create and review changes before pushing them. I haven't found a similar option in Squish, and having an integrated tool for managing conflicts would be beneficial in certain scenarios where collaboration is involved."

"ID could be improved with suggestions of names, variables or class."

"The platform could be improved by implementing some basic functionalities that are frequently used, such as login procedures and screen handling when multiple screens are used at the workplace."

"The price could be better."

"There had been a lot of improvements with froglogic Squish already. There were some scenarios in which this particular solution was available in different flavors. They have pulled everything together in one solution. There were some monitoring systems, which were missing out from the solution earlier. They have a centralized dashboard for monitoring the test cases and their execution. It's a full-blown solution, there are not many glitches in terms of something missing out of the package."

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

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"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."

"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."

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

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

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

"The platform is highly-priced."

"The price could be better. I believe each developer license costs about 6000 or 7000 Euros per year."

"It is expensive."