"The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"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."
"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 major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"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."
"The pricing could be improved."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
Micro Focus UFT Developer is ranked 13th in Functional Testing Tools with 7 reviews while Silk Test is ranked 18th in Functional Testing Tools with 3 reviews. Micro Focus UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Silk Test is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Micro Focus UFT Developer writes "Great features with good stability and an easy initial setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Silk Test writes "An easy to use interface with a recording feature that our business users are happy with". Micro Focus UFT Developer is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, Visual Studio Test Professional and froglogic Squish, whereas Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Selenium HQ, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter and SmartBear TestComplete. See our Micro Focus UFT Developer vs. Silk Test report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation 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.
