OpenText UFT Developer vs k6 Open Source comparison

"The standout feature of k6 is its strong focus on API performance testing."

"The tool's big advantage is that it is more performance-test oriented for experienced testers who know what they are doing. In a normal working setup, performance engineers frequently work with DevOps and development teams. For these teams, k6 Open Source's syntax is much simpler and easier to understand and apply in the working process."

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

"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."

"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."

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

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

"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."

"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."

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

"One area where k6 could improve is by introducing a GUI similar to JMeter."

"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."

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

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

"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."

"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."

"The tool could be a little easier."

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

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

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

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

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

"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."

"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 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."