We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and SmartBear TestComplete 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 most valuable features are the object repository."
"Integrates well with other products."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"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 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 recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"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 product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"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."
"The pricing could be improved."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
"The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 15th in Test Automation Tools with 34 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 71 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing 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.
