Anonymous UserSystems Engineer at a aerospace/defense firm
Anonymous UserQA Analyst II at Regal Entertainment Group
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"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."
"Supplying devices to a testing team of possibly close to one thousand testers and developers is a great undertaking but Sauce Labs has made this very easy and a welcomed solution."
"As stated earlier we use Sauce Labs for a combination of automated testing and manual testing. Therefore the most useful features are the ability to run the functional automated tests via a Sauce Labs tunnels which allows access to applications in our internal network. The second most useful feature is the manual side."
"The most valuable feature is the cross-browser feature, it has many android and iOS devices both simulators and real devices. It's easy to integrate. I also like video recording too."
"Sauce Lab analytics helped us to get detailed knowledge on test cases execution and logs."
"I have found the live test section with Sauce Labs to be extremely valuable. When you can't quite figure out why a test is failing, you can go to the live test results section within their tool and launch your test (specifying a given OS/browser, or device) manually and step through the test to see the issue more clearly, usually opening up the developer's tool console and watching the network calls and console (within Chrome) to usually find the underlying issue."
"The insights section provides a great overall state of the automation suite and can identify trends relatively quickly. If we see a dip in our passing rate over time, we can look at what changed when the test started failing to find the root cause rather than doing a quick fix to find that the test fails a short time later."
"Live device testing. As we all know, It's really hard and challenging to find/purchase many real devices to test because it will be costly and not all the team can be able to purchase all of the devices out there. We used to have a lot of real devices under our labs. However, it is really time-consuming to maintain those devices and make sure they are up to date with the testing requirements."
"So far, the stability has proven to be quite good."
"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."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"If I had to speak of an area that could be improved it would probably have to be the speed of interaction with the devices. There is at times a considerable amount of lag while using some of the virtual and at times even physical device farm"
"We have found that during automated testing this can be very slow. This causes inconsistencies with the tests. It's very difficult to rely on a service when you can't be sure if a test will pass or fail the next time it runs. This means building in a lot of sync time into the tests which in turn slows them down. If this speed could be improved then the service would be much better."
"The only drawback is the speed, it will be good if we have a server in Asia too. It will be great if we can improve speed while initialization and execution."
"They should provide a JIRA integration plugin so that we can easily log issues."
"Overall, I think Sauce Labs provides us with a valuable tool and resource. As far as what could be improved, I would say the overall test execution time. Some of the calls take a bit longer than I expect, for example in web browser tests; while the execution time isn't obnoxious, it could be improved so that overall tests/test suites finish faster."
"The one issue I have is the 14-day trial that a new user gets for free. I understand the concept of the trial period; however, I think this could be revamped to a free 30-minute run time every few months or after a significant update once the trial period has ended."
"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."
"Another feature that could still be improved on is more error clarity. Sometimes when running automated scripts the test will fail on the device side instead of the script and errors only show a 500 try again message instead of a detailed script that could of a been a timeout error from the code."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"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."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"It's more than $10,000 per floating license. That's a yearly cost."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"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."
Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT) is a powerful yet lightweight functional test automation solution, that supports a wide range of AUT technologies. Targeted to technical test automation engineers and developers/testers in Agile teams, Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT) is fully embedded in standard IDEs and integrates naturally with the Dev and QA ecosystems.
Sauce Labs provides the world's largest secure and highly scalable automation cloud for testing desktop, mobile web, native, and hybrid applications. Sauce Labs helps companies accelerate software development cycles, improve application quality, and deploy with confidence across 450+ browser/OS/device/platform combinations.
Micro Focus UFT Developer is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 12 reviews while Sauce Labs is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 10 reviews. Micro Focus UFT Developer is rated 7.0, while Sauce Labs is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Micro Focus UFT Developer writes "Great features with good stability and an easy initial setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sauce Labs writes "Helps us in reducing the number of manual testing". Micro Focus UFT Developer is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, Visual Studio Test Professional and ReadyAPI, whereas Sauce Labs is most compared with BrowserStack, Perfecto, CrossBrowserTesting, Tricentis Tosca and HeadSpin. See our Micro Focus UFT Developer vs. Sauce Labs report.
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.