ACCELQ Automate vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

"The platform contributes to faster test release cycles."

"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."

"In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints."

"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."

"Integrates well with other products."

"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."

"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."

"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."

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

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

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"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."

"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."

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

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

"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."

"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

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

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

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

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

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

"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."

"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."