We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"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 is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"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 most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"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."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"It is a good automation tool."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"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 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."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"The reporting part can be better."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial."
"It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. 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 Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Visual Studio Test Professional, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional Testing 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.