We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Functional Tester and Micro Focus UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, SeleniumHQ, Micro Focus and others in Functional Testing Tools."Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"Integrates well with other products."
"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 solution is very scalable."
"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."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"The pricing could be improved."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"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."
IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 25th in Functional Testing Tools with 1 review while Micro Focus UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 7 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 8.0, while Micro Focus UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus UFT Developer writes "Great features with good stability and an easy initial setup". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Selenium HQ, Micro Focus UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete and Silk Test, whereas Micro Focus UFT Developer is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, Visual Studio Test Professional, Selenium HQ and HCL OneTest.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.
