OpenText UFT Developer vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

OpenText and Progress Software are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #13 with an average rating of 7.8, while Progress Software is ranked #16 with an average rating of 8.3. OpenText holds a 2.8% mindshare in FT, compared to Progress Software’s 1.4% mindshare. Additionally, 76% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Progress Software users who would recommend it.

OpenText UFT Developer

Read 37 OpenText UFT Developer reviews

2,133 Views
1,408 Comparison Views

76% willing to recommend

Telerik Test Studio

Read 5 Telerik Test Studio reviews

1,114 Views
716 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Developer

Telerik Test Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText UFT Developer and Telerik Test Studio are competing products in the realm of automated testing, each offering distinct advantages. While OpenText UFT Developer is praised for its comprehensive support for multiple programming languages, Telerik Test Studio leads in feature richness, making it a preferred choice despite higher costs.

Features: OpenText UFT Developer supports multiple programming languages, offers integration capabilities, and cross-platform testing features. Telerik Test Studio provides user-friendly scriptless automation, extensive reporting, and seamless CI/CD integration.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT Developer could enhance its ease of use for less technical teams, reduce initial complexity, and streamline integrations. Telerik Test Studio may improve customization options, offer more advanced scripting possibilities, and expand technical support resources.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT Developer offers extensive deployment models with expert-level customer service fitting enterprise needs. Telerik Test Studio is characterized by a straightforward installation process and agile customer service for teams needing quick deployment.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT Developer requires a notable initial investment but is cost-effective for enterprises seeking long-term ROI through reduced maintenance costs. Telerik Test Studio has a higher upfront setup cost but offers quick ROI due to reduced development time and learning curve.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT Developer vs. Telerik Test Studio Report (Updated: January 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer vs. Telerik Test Studio

January 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 832,138 peers since 2012

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

OpenText UFT Developer

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

13th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

10th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Telerik Test Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

16th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

17th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Load Testing Tools (12th), Regression Testing Tools (8th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT Developer is 2.8%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.4%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Mohamed Bosri

Process Architect Referent at Forvia

Efficient recording feature shines amid expected desktop and website enhancements

Our use case involves functionality for a system ERP. We work with Deviation, which is stable and receives positive feedback from users OpenText UFT Developer allows junior testers to learn through open source and online resources like YouTube. They can find solutions to issues even if the…

Read full review

Raghvendra Jyothi

Manager Project Management at Capgemini

Very good performance and load testing capabilities

There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

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

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

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

"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."

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

"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."

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

"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."

More OpenText UFT Developer pros

"The performance and load testing are very good."

"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."

"The way it identifies elements is good."

"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."

"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."

Cons

"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."

"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."

"The tool could be a little easier."

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

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"The pricing could be improved."

"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."

More OpenText UFT Developer cons

"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."

"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."

"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."

"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."

"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

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

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

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

More OpenText UFT Developer pricing and cost advice

"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

832,138 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Computer Software Company

18%

Manufacturing Company

16%

Government

13%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

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.

See all answers

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, ...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What do you like most about Telerik Test Studio?

The way it identifies elements is good.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Telerik Test Studio?

Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy. In addition, sometimes, tests used to fail intermittently. These were the two disadvantages.

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Telerik Test Studio?

Instead of Telerik Test Studio, I'd recommend writing test cases in .Net so that in the future, if you move away from Telerik Test Studio to another tool, it would be easier for you. Your current c...

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 61% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 23% of the time

OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 5% of the time

Eggplant Test vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

UiPath Test Suite vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText UFT Developer Competitors

Selenium HQ vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 36% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 19% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 17% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 11% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 11% of the time

More Telerik Test Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer

January 2025

Download OpenText UFT Developer product report

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

January 2025

Download Telerik Test Studio product report

Also Known As

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

No data available

Overview

With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.

OpenText

Telerik Test Studio is an innovative and easy-to-use automated web, WPF and load testing solution. Test Studio tests support essential technologies like ASP.NET AJAX, Silverlight, PHP and MVC. Test Studio functional testing is a comprehensive yet cost-effective automated testing suite. Users can complete tasks quickly and easily with the product's point-and-click interface, which is augmented by Telerik-exclusive features like a visual storyboard and 3D element selection. Test Studio also offers script-less test automation for Silverlight applications. Test Studio load tests allow users to capture quickly capture, multiply and replay complex web traffic. Record HTTP traffic from desktop browsers, mobile devices and web services, and replay traffic with hundreds or thousands of virtual users spread across multiple machines. Fine-tune your load scenario with data binding, user authentication, and dynamic targets. Test Studio Mobile is an intuitive and easy to use test automation solution for Mobile application testing. Create tests once and test across multiple devices and OS's. The point and click functionality allows users to capture quickly and replay complex mobile testing functionality. There is no need to write a single line of code. Test against any number of real devices as you wish or through an emulator by connecting through Wifi. Test Studio for APIs helps customers verify the integrity and reliability of their APIs in an easy way and incorporate their API testing effort in their continuous testing and delivery process. Test Studio for APIs is used to determine whether APIs return the correct response for a broad range of commonly accepted requests, react properly to edge cases such as failures and unexpected inputs, as well as deliver the responses in an acceptable amount of time.

Progress Software

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer vs. Telerik Test Studio

January 2025

Free Report: OpenText UFT Developer vs. Telerik Test Studio

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT Developer vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

832,138 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Telerik Test Studio report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing 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.