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

OpenText UFT Developer vs Selenium HQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText UFT Developer halves test automation efforts, offers cost savings, enhances defect identification, and improves testing outcomes with increased usage.
Sentiment score
7.7
Selenium HQ offers substantial ROI with time savings, efficiency in testing, and no licensing fees, despite initial learning investment.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.7
OpenText UFT Developer support is inconsistent, with mixed feedback on responsiveness and expertise, but users value direct developer access.
Sentiment score
6.2
Selenium HQ relies on community support and online forums for user assistance and troubleshooting rather than official services.
Initially, it was quite poor, but it seems they are making efforts to improve.
I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.8
OpenText UFT Developer is scalable and flexible, supporting diverse platforms, with high user satisfaction despite some challenges.
Sentiment score
7.5
Selenium HQ generally scales well, with successful implementations in various environments, though challenges can arise due to technical demands.
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.8
OpenText UFT Developer's stability varies; some find it reliable, others report issues, improvements noted, stability is use-case dependent.
Sentiment score
7.2
Selenium HQ's stability varies, with stable use reported widely, though issues arise, especially with specific browsers and updates.
We regularly update the product, and overall, it is stable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText UFT Developer needs better browser integration, framework support, and improved performance, pricing, and community resources.
Selenium HQ needs better IE support, cross-browser stability, user-friendly interface, app support, and enhanced documentation for improved usability.
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary.
An automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText UFT Developer's high pricing, compared to open-source tools, limits adoption to larger companies due to setup and license costs.
Selenium HQ is free and appealing to enterprises, though it may incur indirect costs like maintenance and expertise.
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText UFT Developer enhances test automation with strong integration, language flexibility, and robust object recognition supporting diverse applications and DevOps practices.
Selenium HQ is open-source, supports multiple languages, and offers cross-browser compatibility with extensive integration and scalability features.
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio.
New features in Selenium HQ make object identification easier without reliance on XPath and CSS.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText UFT Developer
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
13th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (13th)
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
111
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT Developer is 2.6%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Selenium HQ is 3.7%, down from 5.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.
Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?
There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
It's a high-priced solution compared to Selenium. Selenium is free, though there is a paid version now too. Selenium has improved a lot, and it's still okay to use. It's a functional testing tool, ...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites. It is also suggested that the design and some functionality could be better.
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
Selenium is easy to install and mostly free, so there's no need for a license. This lack of costs makes it an attractive option.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
SeleniumHQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT Developer vs. Selenium HQ and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.