We performed a comparison between LEAPWORK and OpenText UFT Developer 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."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"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."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"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."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"This solution could be improved by offering better reporting related to the integration into Azure DevOps."
"The initial setup is difficult."
"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."
"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."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"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."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
LEAPWORK is ranked 17th in Test Automation Tools with 3 reviews while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 14th in Test Automation Tools with 34 reviews. LEAPWORK is rated 7.6, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. 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 Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". LEAPWORK is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify and Katalon Studio, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive. See our LEAPWORK vs. OpenText UFT Developer 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.
