"We always use the product for end-to-end automation test cases."
"It's pretty straightforward to set up."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"Integrates well with other products."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"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 maintenance is very difficult. We've only been using the platform for three months, so I'm not sure if that will continue, but right now it's an observation I've had."
"It would be good if there could be more integration of Inflectra Rapise, since not all customers use the same tool for test management and automation integration."
"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."
"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."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"The pricing could be improved."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
Inflectra Rapise is ranked 17th in Test Automation Tools with 2 reviews while Micro Focus UFT Developer is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 8 reviews. Inflectra Rapise is rated 8.0, while Micro Focus UFT Developer is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Inflectra Rapise writes "Enables us to automate functional testing of end-to-end test cases for evaluating the impact on the databases ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus UFT Developer writes "Great features with good stability and an easy initial setup". Inflectra Rapise is most compared with SmartBear TestComplete, UiPath, froglogic Squish, Katalon Studio and Selenium HQ, whereas Micro Focus UFT Developer is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, Silk Test and Visual Studio Test Professional. See our Inflectra Rapise vs. Micro Focus UFT Developer report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors and best Regression Testing 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.
