We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Visual Studio Test Professional 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."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."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"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 stability."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"Its initial setup process is easy."
"User-friendly ID and direct integration with GitHub are the most valuable."
"Performance-wise, it is a great tool."
"The most valuable feature of Visual Studio Test Professional is its ease of use."
"The whole suite is made for .NET development."
"Code testing is the most valuable feature of this solution for developing software."
"The user interface is very friendly."
"The tool is flexible and easy to manage. We use it since it is scalable and easy to use. It integrates with solutions."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"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."
"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."
"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 is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"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."
"Sometimes, the product is too complex to use."
"The solution's documentation could be improved because it keeps disappearing from the solution."
"The server that we use is very slow so that is concerning for us."
"The documents on the Microsoft website are not very useful, and they ought to make it easier to find answers."
"Visual Studio Test Professional could improve by having better integration with external databases."
"The performance could be faster."
"The pricing of this solution should be lowered."
"Visual Studio Test Professional needs to improve its scalability."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 47 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. 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 Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and BrowserStack. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Visual Studio Test Professional report.
See our list of best Functional 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.