OpenText UFT Developer Previous Solutions

Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

Previously, we were working with IBM Rational.

We switched since we ran tests using other tools, such as Microsoft testing developers.

We chose Micro Focus UFT Developer because its object detection worked well with our application. I am referring to the recognition of the WPS object.

View full review »
Shyam_Prasad - PeerSpot reviewer
AVP - Testing & QA at Laminaar Aviation

I used QTP. Then, QTP became part of OpenText after the Micro Focus acquisition.

I started with Oracle tools, then Windows tools, and finally HP's UFT. All my 25 years have been in test automation.

View full review »
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at iLAB LLC.

I have used Micro Focus UFT One previously and it gives you the ability to start to use the AI function to recognize more image-based and OCR items within your mobile testing. Micro Focus UFT Developer solution is more code based than Micro Focus UFT One, it gives you a lot more flexibility to record and playback, but instead of the playback portion, it creates scripts that then you can continue adding to.

View full review »
Buyer's Guide
Functional Testing Tools
April 2024
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, SeleniumHQ, Tricentis and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
767,995 professionals have used our research since 2012.
LQ
Systems Engineer at a aerospace/defense firm with 10,001+ employees

I did not previously use a different solution. This is a new tool for me, and I have been supporting it for the last seven years.

View full review »
DG
Senior Specialist - Quality Engineer at a financial services firm with 201-500 employees

I have worked with Selenium and while it is better in some ways, Selenium is not able to handle desktop applications

View full review »
it_user468147 - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Quality Assurance Supervisor at a consumer goods company with 10,001+ employees

There is a lot of Selenium usage and that still occurs. A lot of our agile delivery teams are tools in a toolbox, so, they put up the guardrails on the road and say, "Pick where you want to go, as long as you don't go outside of there, you are good."

View full review »
JW
Director Testing & Quality Assurance at WBF international vice President

I believe in evolution before revolution. I actually saw the birth of the product, which arose through demand from R&D teams to create it in the first place. This has been a global need from a tier-one investment bank that needed a solution that could stack across that many. One of the things I wrote was a charter that stated what we needed in terms of an automation solution for our needs.

View full review »
AS
Programator at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees

Prior to my work with UFT Pro and C#, two others had been writing tests using UFT Basic. This requires that the tests be written in Visual Basic. They are very slow and the Visual Basic version generates a lot of duplicate code. The C# version allows me to use a special library that helps to avoid code duplication.

View full review »
OM
Research & Development Engineer at a insurance company with 201-500 employees

I switched from development to quality testing. Since that time, I used many products including UFT. We had some solutions in basic. After that, I used several products for testing including UFT, Selenium, Cucumber, QCALM (also known as just QC), Dynatrace and more to check on the environment that things like memory and CPU were functioning as expected. Some of these things I would still use depending on the situation. It is not necessarily the product that made us need to switch to UFT. It is the business need and regulations.

View full review »
NA
Director, Information Technology Infrastructure at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

No other product has been able to provide continuous testing and to make a developer responsible for automation testing and all the tools needed except the LeanFT. Mainly, there was only one competitor, Selenium, which is open-source. Since it's open-source, it has its own limitations, which is why we did not choose them.

View full review »
it_user313965 - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant with 10,001+ employees

Previously we used HP UFT and Selenium because there was actually no alternative products at the market.

View full review »
it_user470490 - PeerSpot reviewer
Technologies Consultant at a tech company with 10,001+ employees

We are doing a lot of testing and there are some scenarios where UFT does not fit into the scenario. Since then, we have been looking for a solution. Initially, we were looking at an open-source solution such as Selenium or some third-party tool to learn. We also wrote some of in-house processes, but they are not getting combined with ALM into the single repository, so we are looking for a sub-solution. We kept telling HP that we needed a solution; otherwise, we had to move from UFT and ALM. Ultimately, they told they came up with LeanFT and you can use it with either Eclipse or Visual Studio code.

View full review »
it_user253329 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Automation Engineer with 1,001-5,000 employees

We are a subsidiary, so decision making was limited. Most recently they decided ALM would be the enterprise standard. For automation they decided to use UFT.

View full review »
PE
Senior Test Automation Specialist at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees

The reason we chose this solution is because it is the company-wide chosen solution. It integrates with other tools, such as ALM, a test management tool. We are also going to move up to Octane, but Octane also integrates with UFT. Octane also introduces the possibility of connecting to other tools via Jenkins or Bamboo. The main connection with most ports will be UFT, though. If you look at other tools that are compatible in the market, such as IBM or smaller, open-source tools, they will fit for us, but they have the issue that they only work with one protocol. They only work with Web. If you have complex protocols, then you are forced to use the commercial solutions. IBM or another one that's based on another technique would then also work.

View full review »
PW
Senior Test Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

Micro Focus UFT is an okay solution for specific purposes that we use it for. I also use Katalon Studio and, since Katalon Studios is Java and Groovy-based, it is much better and more up-to-date for testing.

View full review »
it_user253326 - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Automation Architect at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees

We had used a lot of different applications and we needed to shift left to new development practices. So we ended up using Selenium without native Java. Unfortunately, before LeanFT, we ran into issues where Selenium couldn’t handle the functionality of all the applications.

View full review »
it_user313797 - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

In my professional career as Test Automation Developer, I have mainly used UFT. While I will not switch to LeanFT completely, as the products are complementing rather than replacing each other, I will use LeanFT whenever projects dictate that test automation be done during the development process.

View full review »
VS
Software Tester at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees

We are also working with Selenium, which is an open-source solution. We did not use another tool before these.

View full review »
CK
Senior Software Engineer at Xylem

Previously, we explored a few other solutions. One was TesComplete from SmartBear, and the other was Katalon Studio.

View full review »
Buyer's Guide
Functional Testing Tools
April 2024
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, SeleniumHQ, Tricentis and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
767,995 professionals have used our research since 2012.