I would rate technical support a six out of ten.

This is due to the knowledge of the support engineers.

There is room for improvement in support, especially in response time. 

Technical support is average. We are tier three support for our organization. If we cannot resolve a problem, then we lean on the technical support at Micro Focus. They have their own tiers. Most of the time when we ask for support, we get to their tier one support, and then they can't resolve that, they go to tier two, tier three, all the way to R&D. They have their own process, and we have our own process, however, for the most part, it's difficult to get a straight answer. That said, we have grown to have a good rapport with them so that they do not reference "Did you read the manual? Go to page number..." They now understand that when we call we have exhausted all our references and we need their help. It's a bit better than average at this point. We're mostly satisfied with the support on offer.

I didn't find them to be exceptionally good. They are very slow, and for every problem, they want you to raise a ticket. Very often, they are not available or open. We often have to close tickets due to a lack of a timely response.

I've not had to use HPE tech support for LeanFT.

Technical support is good. 

They are very quick, the response time is very good. 

We are satisfied with the support.

My view is that we have to have access to the product boards in order to give feedback on how the direction of the product is going. Technical support is good right now, but we, as users, need to be able to own control of how HP chooses to change the product.

I would rate technical support a one out of five.

When I ask for something on the Micro Focus page, I never get a reply. It also took me a long time to get a reply and the answers that I received did not always fit my inquiry.

The support for UFT is not good. When we send email to forums or support, we may get a response, and maybe we won't. When we do, the solution is not always good.

Our biggest issue was in the switch over from HP Inc. to HPE. I think we had some trouble getting in touch with higher level support so we spent a lot of time going through basic support where the people that work with the tools have a lot of experience with the tools. We think that it would be better if we could bypass the lowest levels of support on some issues. I can understand the process that we usually have to go through but more recently our reps have been helpful in getting us to the people that we need quicker so we can get a resolution.

Support is very good. 

Technical support is not good.

It's a new product and the developer community's using it aggressively and it's fitting in well with the dev-ops life cycle as part of continuous testing. The demand is high, the product is new, but the product support team is not able to cope with the dynamic requirements from different customer segments. Support is very slow in addressing issues because of these dynamic requirements.

In our case, eventually, the company arranged for the LeanFT project manager and global project manager to come to our office to spend two days and listen to our concerns and to prioritize addressing those concerns. I think that until the product is matured, the support will take time to stabilize.

The support in the alpha/beta test phase was especially good.

The technical support was perfect as we could talk directly to architects developers and product managers.

We hardly have incidents. There hasn't been much activity as compared to UFT. We will see how it goes in the future.

I would rate the technical support as okay, but not better. There are bugs between UFT and HTLM that they have not been able to solve. 

Technical support has been good so far. Sometimes it takes minutes, sometimes they take more time, but most of the time they're good.

Technical support was not very good. We do reach out, but often they're unable to help. Customer support was similar.

So far, technical support is very good because we have been using HPE products, or the earlier Mercury products for a long time. We have a quite good collaboration with them. From that kind of background and knowing our kind of working environment and solutions, together with their technical support and help, we have been able to implement these tools in the right way the first time, without trying to invent the wheel on our side.

Right now, we have a good experience with support because we quickly get to developers with issues. When we contact the support, if it is a bigger problem, we have a call or a session with the developers themselves and that's quite nice. They have also been at PostFinance twice. And this gives you a good feeling about being important and you think they care about you and they want you to have a product that works.

The problem is that when you run this through a development tool you must be an actual developer to program the script language. Normally there are other script languages for example, .Net or Java. When you have Java development name, then this tool would normally not fit into it because it has another language. It chooses another language, so that would be complicated for developers to use it. And the problem is that sometimes the programming language it too complex for just help us to make scripts.

Technical support is okay, as long as you pay for it. It's not free.

We have a separate in-house team that deals with technical support. 

We did actually contact the technical support for an issue once. The support was actually quite good. But, honestly, that is what I would expect for a product at this price point.

Haven’t had any technical support yet, but the demo team was great.

The technical support has been fine.

We've gone through the standard customer support and it’s been good. It's not quite to the level that an R&D would be, because they really get really under the covers to fix things.

I have not contacted technical support. I have not needed to, there have been no issues.