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."It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"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 solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"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."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"Visual Studio Test Professional is a very scalable solution."
"The user interface is very friendly."
"Visual Studio is highly powerful. It's probably the best software development tool on the market."
"It is a very common and strong product. A lot of support is available for this product."
"The setup is easy and straightforward."
"You can easily write code, test, and deploy within the same environment. It is a mature tool. It regularly receives new updates and versions. In my opinion, it's one of the best products by Microsoft for developers."
"The tool is flexible and easy to manage. We use it since it is scalable and easy to use. It integrates with solutions."
"The ability to quickly make your own components has been valuable."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"The pricing could be improved."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"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."
"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."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"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."
"Visual Studio Test Professional is a little pricey."
"It could be available for multiple platforms and other operating systems like Mac with a native port."
"It is not good in terms of performance. When you open Visual Studio, you have to wait for a while to process your code. It uses a lot of resources and has a lot of features. If we could disable some of the features, it would be lighter and faster to use. Nowadays, for some of the projects, we use VS Code for JavaScript or Python. VS Code is very light and easy to use, whereas, in Visual Studio, we have to wait because it takes time to compile or run a project. It has a lot of competitors in terms of performance, such as Intelligent ID. Intelligent ID is very easy to use. It has many features, and it is lighter to use than Visual Studio. In terms of error handling, sometimes, it shows an error before you finish your code, which can be improved. It would be good if it has a version for Linux. I use VS Code on Linux, but I am not sure if Visual Studio has a version for Linux."
"It is hard to learn, and you need to invest time to understand it."
"I would like to see more integration in the solution."
"Enhancing the support for web application testing and load performance would be an improvement."
"The solution's deployment is not very easy and should be made easier."
"The price is reasonable, but it's not the best."
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 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 48 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, Original Software TestDrive and Automai AppLoader, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad and SmartBear TestComplete. 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.