OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

"The statistics that are available are very good."

"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."

"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."

"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."

"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."

"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."

"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."

"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."

"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."

"The most valuable features are the object repository."

"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 me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."

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

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

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

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

"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."

"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."

"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."

"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."

"The pricing could be improved."

"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."

"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."

"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."

"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."

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

"The price of the solution could improve."

"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."

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

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

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

"Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and while I think that the price is quite reasonable I am not allowed to share those details."

"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."