We performed a comparison between Micro Focus UFT Developer and Micro Focus UFT One based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Micro Focus UFT One ranks higher in this comparison. It is more up-to-date and provides for better integration with many of today's popular solutions and technologies.
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"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."
"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."
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."
"Integrates well with other products."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"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."
"It is a stable solution."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"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 pricing could be improved."
"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."
"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."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"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 should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 14th in Test Automation Tools with 34 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". 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". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish, Original Software TestDrive and Selenium HQ, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, UiPath Test Suite and Ranorex Studio. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. OpenText UFT One report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing 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.
Hi Subhash.
Both tools can:
UFT One - allows you to automate functional and regression testing for the widest range of applications and technologies can supports testing GUI, web, mobile or API applications.
UFT Developer - is powerful and lightweight functional automation software for Agile and DevOps teams, built specifically for continuous testing and continuous integration. It allows you to create tests in your favourite IDEs and to write robust and reusable test automation scripts using JavaScript, Java or C#. Get fast feedback from your test execution with the lightweight but detailed results report.
UFT One includes a licence to UFT Developer.
If you don't need the additional support in UFT One, the UFT Developer is the tool you need.