We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Telerik Test Studio 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 cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"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 for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"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 price of the solution could improve."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"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."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"The pricing could be improved."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Telerik Test Studio is ranked 18th in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Telerik Test Studio 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 Telerik Test Studio writes "Very good performance and load testing capabilities". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive, whereas Telerik Test Studio is most compared with Selenium HQ, Ranorex Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio and Tricentis Tosca. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Telerik Test Studio report.
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.
