We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and TestProject based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"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."
"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 most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"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 automation of test cases."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The ease of web and mobile functional testing is pretty easy on TestProject."
"Since implementing this solution, our code management has been reduced by 40% to 60%."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"Ability to carry out automatic testing without having coding knowledge."
"The automation and AI are very good."
"The script-less part of it was good for novice users."
"The pricing could be improved."
"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 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."
"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."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."
"The support is a weak point since they discontinued the tool."
"We'd like to see a direct cloud from TestProject instead of some other third party."
"Difficult trying to configure on more than one browser."
"I and some other experts may be able to understand the solution's reporting system, but a layperson won't understand it."
"In an upcoming release, there should be a SaaS offering available."
"TestProject needs better support for integration with other products to provide a better overall solution for test planning and test data management."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 15th in Test Automation Tools with 34 reviews while TestProject is ranked 16th in Test Automation Tools with 6 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while TestProject is rated 7.2. 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 TestProject writes "An easy-to-use tool that saves time and functions within a limited budget". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Selenium HQ, whereas TestProject is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Testim. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. TestProject report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
