We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Testim 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."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 features are the object repository."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"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."
"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."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"The product is easy to use."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"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 tool could be a little easier."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Testim is rated 9.2. 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 Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Testsigma and Applitools. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Testim 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.
