We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Sauce Labs based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"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."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"Integrates well with other products."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"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 most valuable feature is the ability to run concurrent automated tests up to a specified value, depending on what we are currently paying for."
"With Sauce Labs, we have a whole universe of devices: Galaxy, all the iPhones, and all the operating system versions. All our software developers are able to test on a multitude of different devices."
"The most critical thing is that this software aligns with our Agile and DevOps way of doing things. It integrates with kickoff scripts through DevOps."
"The abundance of device, platform, and browser combinations/versions that can be used in parallel."
"They update for the latest browsers and mobile phones and support a lot of combinations. They have 1,000-plus desktop combinations and browser versions, which is really great. We need that at Applause. The all-in-one testing suite aspect of it is really important because most of our clients prefer to go to one place."
"It provides zero maintenance browser instances."
"Sauce Labs is optimized for automation and integration with the major CI/CD platforms and developer tools. We have an integration with App Center that we're working on. They have a storage API that lets us retrieve APK and IPA, iOS and Android builds off the phone, so that we can continue testing with CI/CD. They integrate with Jenkins, and Jenkins is the main CI/CD."
"So far, the stability has proven to be quite good."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"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 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."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"As a web product QA team, we sometimes need to spot check some new child site on multiple browsers and OS(es). It was a little time consuming for us since we need to click on each of the browser/OS combinations and start a new session to test. Every sprint, with new features and child pages being added, we mostly need to do the same steps over and over again."
"Integration with Github, as well as several other similar tools, could be improved."
"The ability to install profiles on iOS real mobile devices should be included."
"The Jenkins Sauce OnDemand plugin could have more options available to tap into more of the custom capabilities Sauce Labs actually supports."
"I would like for there to be more detail in regards to the quality of our code i.e. how many failures occurred, how many passed based on industry standard metrics, etc."
"Better and programmatic controls on request/response recordings and sharing with developers."
"It should provide more examples of script code."
"Lacks the ability to start multiple tests simultaneously."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Sauce Labs is ranked 11th in Functional Testing Tools with 113 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Sauce Labs is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sauce Labs writes "Robust documentation, helpful support representative, good licensing model". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and Selenium HQ, whereas Sauce Labs is most compared with BrowserStack, Perfecto, LambdaTest, Bitbar and Tricentis Tosca. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Sauce Labs report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
