Micro Focus UFT Developer Overview

Micro Focus UFT Developer is the #8 ranked solution in our list of top Test Automation Tools. It is most often compared to Micro Focus UFT One: Micro Focus UFT Developer vs Micro Focus UFT One

What is Micro Focus UFT Developer?

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.

Micro Focus UFT Developer is also known as UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT.

Micro Focus UFT Developer Buyer's Guide

Download the Micro Focus UFT Developer Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: June 2021

Micro Focus UFT Developer Customers

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

Micro Focus UFT Developer Video

Pricing Advice

What users are saying about Micro Focus UFT Developer pricing:
  • "It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
  • "It's more than $10,000 per floating license. That's a yearly cost."
  • "The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
  • "It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
  • "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."

Filter Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
OM
Research & Development Engineer at a insurance company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Helps to determine problem areas but it has many problems and limitations

What is our primary use case?

We use UFT Pro for all user testing platforms. We use the standard installation but we use UFT in two models. One is used for testing all functionalities in our environment and the second is one we are developing to use as a solution to test the availability of the environment in production. So UFT will check out the performance of the production environment every 12 minutes to be sure that the entire environment is stable. If we don't have any problem, the information is stored in a database and we do a BVD (Bank Vault Drawer) analysis of the information in the database for checking all… more »

Pros and Cons

  • "It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
  • "It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."

What other advice do I have?

I prefer other products like Selenium to UFT, but each product has its advantages. For example, in UFT we can test HTML protocol for the web applications and also desktop applications. Selenium is for web applications only. That is its limitation. If you have to test both and want to install only one product, UFT has an advantage. Because of all the problems and limitations of the UTF product, I would rate it at only a four out of ten (where ten is the best and one is the worst). By comparison, I would give Selenium an eight out of ten. You can see I think UFT is not my favorite product and it…
LQ
Systems Engineer at a aerospace/defense firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 10
Great features with good stability and an easy initial setup

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution in order to test functionality on other applications. It does have the capability of screengrabbing, recording, test automation, implementation of test cases, et cetera. It's called Unified Functional Test and therefore it does these functional requirements of the application in question.

Pros and Cons

  • "The solution is very scalable."
  • "The pricing could be improved."

What other advice do I have?

We are just customers and end-users. This is a client-based application. I'd advise other companies considering the solution to ensure that your organization is mature in the software development life cycle and that the organization has documentation, videos, and knowledge of where the testers can go for that information. It shouldn't be a repeat of a user's manual or a link to their documentation. They need to translate and synthesize the documentation into very bulleted items. If I have a user manual that is composed of five pages, I translate all that into three bullet items. The testers do…
Learn what your peers think about Micro Focus UFT Developer. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: June 2021.
511,773 professionals have used our research since 2012.
NA
Director, Information Technology Infrastructure at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Easy to use for test data management and client application testing

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution for automation testing.

Pros and Cons

  • "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."
  • "The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."

What other advice do I have?

We use the on-premises deployment model. I would recommend the solution. I don't think there is any substitute for LeanFT as of now. Some users may be charmed by Selenium because it is open-source, but there is a good part of that community which has gone through the Selenium curve and they know how much time it takes to develop the test scripts with Selenium. If they were to evaluate LeanFT, they would easily see the difference. One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification is the most…
PE
Senior Test Automation Specialist at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
Can test many different protocols but it should be faster

What is our primary use case?

We use both the on-premises and cloud deployment models of this solution. The testing tool needs to connect to the real environment and that almost always means on-premises. However, you can also use a cloud variant, but then you're working on virtual machines in the cloud.

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
  • "It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."

What other advice do I have?

Testing is much more complicated than presented by the provider. They make it look like it's easy, but that's not the case. There is a lot of work put into it and you must also maintain the scripts. Sometimes people think that you don't have to maintain it, but scripts will not update themselves. There is no artificial intelligence in these kinds of tools. For example, if you have a login page and you get an update then you also have to update your script. This is because it used an object repository where it put in some objects to verify it. When objects change, the script won't run or at…
AS
Programator at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Easy to deploy and automates many C# test scenarios in my hardware simulator

What is our primary use case?

I am a software developer and at my company, we use this solution for testing a banking ATM application that is written in C#. There is a customer screen that is part of a simulator for physical devices and different scenarios such as card and PIN entry have to be tested. Example test cases can be things like insufficient funds to dispense or it does not have the required bills. Another might be that the printer raises a hardware error. There are approximately 500 scenarios to test and in some, it will reject the transaction. We have UFT deployed on a TFS server and the test agents are running… more »

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
  • "The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."

What other advice do I have?

I requested a trial of the most recent version and I have not yet received a response. The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this solution is that I cannot automate everything. That had been my initial goal. Even with the problems that I have mentioned, I think that this is one of the best solutions on the market right now. I tried changing solutions but I was not able to fully automate my application. If they just improve the support then it would be great. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
Phil Ward
Senior Test Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 10
Has a good recording feature but they could better integrate the API and the GUI testing

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use at this time is mainly to automate testing of Windows and web-based GUIs.

Pros and Cons

  • "The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
  • "The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

What other advice do I have?

My advice for those considering this product as a solution is that they should look closely at alternative products to make a good comparison of features, capabilities, and cost. At the moment we are also using a product called Katalon Studio, which is freeware and it does pretty much everything that we want it to do. The biggest lesson I've learned from using UFT is to compare solutions. I would go so far as to say that even if UFT were free, I would still prefer Katalon Studio. On a scale from one to ten where ten is the best, I would rate UFT Pro as only a five now. I would rate it so low…
SP
Framework Architect and Test Automation Specialist at a government with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
All our tests are run unattended, automated, and on remote servers

What is our primary use case?

We have many data centers, and the infrastructure for these is moving to the Amazon cloud. They are working towards a total transformation. We have a lot of mobile applications. Some of these are Java-based, but a number of them are Angular and Ionic-based. Here, our usage is as a simple record and playback utility. We perform unit testing as a one-off operation, and once we complete development tasks, we do the unit testing. Our developers only have two machines, one for .NET and one for Java. There is no commitment to buy these tools by their licensed permit.

Pros and Cons

  • "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."
  • "With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."

What other advice do I have?

I would rate the UFT product 8 out of 10. It's cheaper, but they also have an enterprise license. If you take it, you get the license for both. However, we don't use both.
Dhananjay Singh
Team Leader at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5
Easy to use, the installation is clear, the support is good, and it has a good object recognition capability

What is our primary use case?

In a very small location, we are using this solution for the infrastructure-related applications for testing and with a very low number of licenses, only two. We are planning to change to SAP S/4HANA.

Pros and Cons

  • "The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
  • "In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."

What other advice do I have?

If someone is starting right from the beginning, I would not recommend they go with UFT. Instead, I would recommend Tosca. The good points in UFT are the cost, it's easy to use, the installation is quite clear, the licensing model is quite good, and the object recognition feature is very good. The con is that the code-based it not a good thing. Tosca has better features in terms of analytical capabilities. The impact analysis is available in Tosca, yet not offered in UFT. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
See 6 more Micro Focus UFT Developer Reviews
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Micro Focus UFT Developer Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.