OpenText UFT Developer vs Qualibrate comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
OpenText Logo
3,112 views|1,893 comparisons
77% willing to recommend
Qualibrate Logo
246 views|98 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Qualibrate based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: April 2024).
769,599 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"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 is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry.""The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working.""The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local.""The cost is the most important factor in this tool.""The most valuable feature is stability.""The solution is very scalable.""Integrates well with other products."

More OpenText UFT Developer Pros →

"What Qualibrate makes very easy to do is to record a process flow. Within five minutes you have a clear document produced by Qualibrate. Instead of using Word, and copying and pasting pictures into it from printscreens, within five minutes what you have was easy to make and it's easy for users to use.""The widget's ease of use is the most valuable, which means it allows you or business people to record the automated test scripts. In most cases, it is really good because it is the business people who actually know how the system is being used. The simplicity of the design is valuable, where you can record your transactions, then create your automated scripts. You can automate it at the same time, and the automation features are cool.""The most valuable feature is that it's user-friendly.""It is the principle functionality that we're leveraging, which really can be defined as recordings and playbacks. So, you record the scripts that you want to execute and you also want to be able to playback. So, these are the features that we are largely leveraging. There are flows and scenarios, and they are the design aspects that fit within the playback and the recording solution. For me, they are the core of Qualibrate, and that's what we're using.""We use the solution’s Test Planning & test Execution Scheduling features, and they are very important. They are easy to work with. We use SAP Solution Manager, and Qualibrate works with it, enabling us to manage all our tests, taking them from Solution Manager directly into Qualibrate."

More Qualibrate Pros →

Cons
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure.""I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability.""The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years.""The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement.""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.""In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable.""The tool could be a little easier.""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."

More OpenText UFT Developer Cons →

"We had an issue with SAP when using PDF forms. That was something that was not supported by Qualibrate, but we solved that issue by choosing another solution. That was the only wish we had with Qualibrate.""Not everything in SAP works well with Qualibrate. There is a development tool called xpath and you have to program it. We always thought it wouldn't be necessary to program it with Qualibrate, that everything could be solved by Qualibrate without programming, but you have to program some things. Using xpath is more complicated, and not easy for everybody. It would be helpful if there were a no-code solution for this.""What I would really like to see is if you are running scripts in Qualibrate, and there is a defect, then you can have it automatically raise a defect in your own ticketing system.""What could be improved would be the intuitiveness of the reporting engine. It does have reporting, i.e., a dashboard, but it is preconfigured, predefined KPIs and datasets. That could be improved because the datasets don't have descriptions, so you really need to know what you're doing. Whereas, it would be great if it could have more descriptions and be easy to build your own KPIs.""There is a module that we would like to have. We would like Qualibrate to design a requirements module so that we can design our testing, our flows, and our scenarios based on our actual requirements. Right now, we're doing that, but we're having to do it outside of Qualibrate. For example, in Excel, we might have a list of 50, 60, or 70 different requirements and combinations of tests that need to be executed, and since that module doesn't exist in Qualibrate, we're doing it offline. We have already vocalized that wishlist to them, and they have acknowledged it, but I have no idea when they're going to get around to deploying something like that. It is probably number one on our list."

More Qualibrate Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "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."
  • "The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
  • "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."
  • "It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
  • "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."
  • "The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
  • More OpenText UFT Developer Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "Qualibrate is realistically priced. I can't compare it because I haven't looked at other tools, but I think it is good. What I like is you can simply add new users, if you want. It has a license model that comes with different types of users, which I think makes sense."
  • "Automated testing is not cheap. But other companies, for example, Panaya, required a minimum of 10 licenses. Qualibrate allowed us to start small, with three licenses, with a price that was competitive within the market."
  • "We signed a three-year contract and the pricing is in line with our expectations."
  • "We probably have 10 licenses, but I don't know what are the costs or anything like that."
  • "I compared the prices of the 15 solutions we looked at. Qualibrate was the most valuable because it could be integrated with SAP Solution Manager."
  • More Qualibrate Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    769,599 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.
    Top Answer:The pricing is competitive. It is affordable and average.
    Top Answer:Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars.
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Ranking
    16th
    Views
    3,112
    Comparisons
    1,893
    Reviews
    2
    Average Words per Review
    452
    Rating
    8.0
    35th
    Views
    246
    Comparisons
    98
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
    Learn More
    Qualibrate
    Video Not Available
    Overview
    With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.
    Undertaking a software transformation journey is a high risk. We offer a simple yet powerful solution to minimize the risk and reduce the implementation resources up to 80%.

    Qualibrate is the cloud solution for SAP & web apps test automation, like Salesforce: it has the power of simplicity, customization, and integration with the most CI/CD tools. Test cases are highly reusable and easily maintainable.

    All you need to do is to record a Business Process: user actions, test data, and technical information will be captured. The recording will be your unique source of truth for running Automated tests and Manual tests, but also for Learning.
    Sample Customers
    Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
    AirFrance KLM, Provincie Noord Holland, Ministerie van Defensie, Nouryon, Bell Helicopter, Textron,
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Comms Service Provider12%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm22%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company25%
    Financial Services Firm13%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    Insurance Company9%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business5%
    Midsize Enterprise24%
    Large Enterprise71%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise77%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise16%
    Large Enterprise69%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    769,599 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Qualibrate is ranked 35th in Functional Testing Tools. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Qualibrate is rated 8.8. 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 Qualibrate writes "Reduces our testing time significantly, enabling us to release more frequently". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Selenium HQ, whereas Qualibrate is most compared with .

    See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation Tools vendors, and best Regression 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.