Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText UFT Developer vs Selenium HQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText UFT Developer halves test automation efforts, offers cost savings, enhances defect identification, and improves testing outcomes with increased usage.
Sentiment score
7.6
Selenium HQ reduces testing time, achieves 60% ROI, requires Java developers, and improves efficiency up to 55% in a week.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.7
OpenText UFT Developer support is inconsistent, with mixed feedback on responsiveness and expertise, but users value direct developer access.
Sentiment score
6.2
Selenium HQ offers no direct support; users rely on community forums and online resources for assistance with issues.
Initially, it was quite poor, but it seems they are making efforts to improve.
The marketplace community and forums are what we browse and look after, and we have found solutions whenever we tried to find anything.
I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.8
OpenText UFT Developer is scalable and flexible, supporting diverse platforms, with high user satisfaction despite some challenges.
Sentiment score
7.5
Selenium HQ is scalable with technical expertise, enabling parallel testing, but scalability varies by framework design.
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.8
OpenText UFT Developer's stability varies; some find it reliable, others report issues, improvements noted, stability is use-case dependent.
Sentiment score
7.2
Selenium HQ is generally stable but faces issues with Internet Explorer and new browsers needing maintenance and proper test architecture.
We regularly update the product, and overall, it is stable.
Selenium HQ is a scalable solution; it has been in production for the last two years, but I have been working on it for the last six years, so it is definitely scalable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText UFT Developer needs better browser integration, framework support, and improved performance, pricing, and community resources.
Users want better browser support, integration, simplified setup, clearer documentation, auto-healing, AJAX improvement, and frequent updates.
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary.
An automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
I don't know if we have that capability to provide different data sources such as SQL Server, CSV, or maybe some other databases, so that kind of capability would be great.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText UFT Developer's high pricing, compared to open-source tools, limits adoption to larger companies due to setup and license costs.
Selenium is open-source and free, but setup and maintenance may require investment in developer skills and expertise.
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText UFT Developer enhances test automation with strong integration, language flexibility, and robust object recognition supporting diverse applications and DevOps practices.
Selenium HQ offers cost-free, open-source cross-browser testing, supports multiple languages, frameworks, and facilitates integration with CI tools.
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio.
When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline.
New features in Selenium HQ make object identification easier without reliance on XPath and CSS.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText UFT Developer
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (11th)
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
112
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT Developer is 2.6%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Selenium HQ is 3.7%, down from 5.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.
Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
851,491 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?
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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object.
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
Selenium is easy to install and mostly free, so there's no need for a license. This lack of costs makes it an attractive option.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
SeleniumHQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT Developer vs. Selenium HQ and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.
851,491 professionals have used our research since 2012.