We performed a comparison between LEAPWORK and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The UI is user-friendly."
"The most valuable of this solution is the no code option. It offers drag and drop when it comes to development and removes the need for a developer."
"It provides automated testing. Instead of us doing manual testing, we can utilize Leapwork, and it tests most of our critical processes. In the next phase, we also plan to do some process work with it, such as using Leapwork to create reports or provide certain extracts of data."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"The initial setup is difficult."
"This solution could be improved by offering better reporting related to the integration into Azure DevOps."
"The only thing that I don't like about the product is the need to deploy agents on the laptops of people doing the testing. So, you have an agent on a server, then you have an agent on the laptop of the person who is doing the testing, and that seems like a lot of stuff and a kind of anti-cloud. Why do I have to deploy agents on people's machines in order to do something in the cloud? I'm sure they're doing that so they can monitor their licensing and all that stuff, but it is not necessarily a friendly process."
"It is a very comprehensive tool, and there is a significant learning curve to being able to adopt the tool. Because it does so much, there is only so much that you can learn. You can, however, do some simpler things right away. They do have a kind of boot camp where some of their experts engage with you, and during that time, you can work on the top initiatives that you want to do, and that's a good process. After you start using the tool, there is a lot more that you would want to do."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
LEAPWORK is ranked 17th in Test Automation Tools with 3 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews. LEAPWORK is rated 7.6, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of LEAPWORK writes "The product has a user-friendly UI, and it provides good support, but it is expensive and difficult to setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". LEAPWORK is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete, Worksoft Certify, Katalon Studio and Avo Assure, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite. See our LEAPWORK vs. OpenText UFT One report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.