We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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 most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"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."
"Integrates well with other products."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
"The product is easy to use."
"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"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."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"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."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."
"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 16 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is rated 7.4. 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 OpenText UFT Digital Lab writes "Robust solution for application lifecycle management with numerous valuable features". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and Selenium HQ, whereas OpenText UFT Digital Lab is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Perfecto, Appium, AWS Device Farm and Tricentis Tosca. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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.
