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

Appium vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Appium
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
Mobile Development Platforms (7th), Regression Testing Tools (6th)
OpenText UFT Digital Lab
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (19th), Mobile App Testing Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Appium and OpenText UFT Digital Lab aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Appium is designed for Mobile Development Platforms and holds a mindshare of 5.1%, down 7.8% compared to last year.
OpenText UFT Digital Lab, on the other hand, focuses on Mobile App Testing Tools, holds 3.7% mindshare, down 4.2% since last year.
Mobile Development Platforms
Mobile App Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Abhishek-Tiwari - PeerSpot reviewer
Has cross-platform flexibility and a record-and-play option
The challenging part with Appium is that installation can be a bit tricky. It can be challenging to set up in Android versus iOS environments. Appium has some limitations in terms of writing code using simulators and online cloud devices. I faced challenges with native based scenarios, battery turn out percentage, battery charging percentage, and memory capacity. The other challenge I faced involved codes changing from device to device. For example, the piece of code that works in iOS version 10.1 won't work in iOS version 6.0. In upcoming releases, if they can reduce some more of the dependencies like SDK, UIAutomator, etc., it would be great. That is, I'd like to see a consolidated package or bundle release that is much more user-friendly.
Robinson Caiado - PeerSpot reviewer
Automates mobile solutions while boosting productivity and fostering innovation
It allows multiple devices to be used and gives flexibility in adding devices when a project is needed. Most of the time, I have several devices where it is predefined. We can use it, but sometimes, we must scale it in a particular situation. It's very flexible. It is very important because we can use a different approach to software testing, for example, to find a way to execute UFT software testing with only one execution. This reproduces all the platforms that we need.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Appium's wide support of programming languages is valuable."
"The interface is user-friendly, which is beneficial for users, even for those who are new to it."
"It's an open-source solution with a very large community and available documentation."
"We get a list that shows all devices that are connected to the system."
"What I like about Appium right now is that it's like Cypress in the sense that............. to test the components in the way I want them to be tested."
"It has great documentation and excellent community support."
"It can be used with different programming languages."
"The latest versions of the solution are stable."
"The product is easy to use."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"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."
"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 most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
 

Cons

"I rarely use Appium nowadays because I'm now at the managerial level, but the last time I used it, whenever I selected and clicked on an element, Appium was very slow. I tried to debug it, but I still couldn't find the problem, so this is an area for improvement in the solution. Another area for improvement lies with the connector and server. For example, the effort to get into the local machine sometimes causes the emulator to become slow, which then leads to failure in testing, and this is the usual issue I've encountered from Appium. An additional feature I'd like added to Appium in its next release is being able to do automation in iOS without using XPath and the name of the element. In Xcode, you can use previous UI tests for detecting elements, but in Appium, you have to use Xpath and the element name instead of being able to directly put the X-UiPath, which is what you can do in Xcode. In iOS as well, sometimes the element doesn't have a name or a path. Sometimes, there's also no element."
"One area where I think Appium could improve is in addressing security concerns for our data. Currently, we're unable to use cloud solutions like CloudForm due to security restrictions on our servers. We also face challenges in updating packages for the same reason. It would be beneficial if the solution could provide better support for auto-reporting and easier connections to mobile device farms."
"Configuration-wise, there is a lot of room for improvement."
"Support-wise, it could be better."
"Appium could improve by enabling record and run techniques similar to what they have in other licensing tools, such as Micro Focus. We have to all write the code, and then we can proceed."
"It needs to accommodate applications that use React.js and AngularJS."
"Appium has problems with automated validations following iOS updates, causing us to have to validate manually."
"We previously worked with native applications, and there weren't any good mobile app testing tools. We started working with React Native, which works well with Appium, but it would be good to see better integration; the way elements are displayed can be messy. React Native is very popular nowadays, so it's essential to have that compatibility."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"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."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"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."
"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."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is free."
"It's open source, so it's completely free."
"We found out that we could explore features of the solution for 30 days trial. We can switch to a permanent license later if we want."
"Appian is open-source, which is not licensed."
"It's completely 100% free, and there are no hidden fees."
"There is no license for this solution because it is open-source."
"I'm unsure if there's any cost associated with Appium. I got the free package which includes the server GUI application and the inspector application, and it was free to download, and that's all I need to get my work done. I'm not aware of any additional costs associated with the tool."
"The price is good for people to be able to make a favorable decision for the value."
"The product could be more affordable."
"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile Development Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
832,138 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Do you recommend Appium?
I do recommend Appium. It is an open-source solution and completely free of charge. We use Appium and Appium Studio as our base for any type of mobile automation for testing. It has a great interfa...
What do you like most about Appium?
Appium helps me to do as much as much as I want to.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Appium?
My experience with Appium from a pricing perspective is favorable due to it being open source, making it a cost-effective option.
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
Sometimes, it's challenging to have relations with OpenText support.
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
We use it in financial services companies to automate mobile solutions and applications.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nuvizz, Coupa Software, Eventbrite, Evernote
Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
Find out what your peers are saying about OutSystems, Mendix, Salesforce and others in Mobile Development Platforms. Updated: February 2025.
832,138 professionals have used our research since 2012.