We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Original Software Qualify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"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."
"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."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"Flexible software with multiple functions, e.g. scenario deployment, new entity creation, workflow creation, etc. Technical support for this software is very good."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"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."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"The reporting engine of Original Software Qualify AQM needs to change. It's very difficult to develop complex reports. Its reporting function needs improvement."
Earn 20 points
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Original Software Qualify is ranked 35th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Original Software Qualify is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Original Software Qualify writes "Flexible, multifunctional, and stable testing software with good technical support". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Selenium HQ, whereas Original Software Qualify is most compared with .
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.