ACCELQ Automate vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

"The platform contributes to faster test release cycles."

"The most valuable feature is stability."

"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."

"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"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."

"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."

"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 most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."

"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."

"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."

"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."

"In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object."

"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 price of the solution could improve."

"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."

"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."

"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."

"I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."