ACCELQ Automate vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

"The platform contributes to faster test release cycles."

"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."

"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."

"Integrates well with other products."

"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."

"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."

"The solution is very scalable."

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

"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."

"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."

"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."

"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."

"The pricing could be improved."

"The price of the solution could improve."

"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."

"Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously."

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

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

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

"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."

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

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

"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 licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

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