OpenText UFT Developer Reviews

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.

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. That's a strong point of this tool because open source tools like Selenium can run only one protocol, like Web, for example. A lot of legacy systems do not use Web as their front end, however. They use a Windows-built .Net application or something else that is not web-enabled.

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.

I would like to see them add a feature that tells you if you can run parallel sessions in it. If it were a lot faster than the Chrome version that would be a major win.

The product itself is a stable tool when running on a stable machine. However, a lot of things can influence the stability of the tool. Windows updates can have an influence on the stability of the product. Virus scanner local policies can have an influence on the stability of the product.

It's a single run, so that means that you cannot usually use it multiple times in one session.

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.

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.

For me the setup is simple but I think that when you have to do it for the first time, you have a lot of choices which you can make. Then it would be complex, but I think that with the knowledge that I have it is easy. I can do the installation of such a tool in 30 minutes. It can also be set up in collaboration with other tools, but then you have to set some environment settings before you can do that. If you do not know that, then you will need to search for that information before you have the answer. That's some knowledge that you have to be aware of.

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 least it will fail. There are already tools that have a functionality that can update the object repository that it uses because it sees similarities in the tests that would normally run. The tool sees an update to objects and it can interpret that as a correct version of the tests that should run.

I would rate UFT overall as seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to enable us to easily automate tasks on several different applications based on different technologies.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks.

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 performance can be improved. There are much faster tools now. This solution is a bit older and works with older systems, but it's a bit slower because of this.

They should modernize the product a little bit. The UI looks okay, but it also looks like something that is ten to twenty years old.

The stability of the solution is good.

The scalability is good.

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

You don't need a lot of in-depth experience to handle the setup. It's enough if you read some documentation. There are plenty of tutorials to help you if you need it.

I handled the implementation myself.

Pricing depends on which model you choose. The cloud version has a monthly fee, whereas on-prem versions offer yearly or monthly fees. You can also purchase a permanent license. If your license expires, you will still be able to use the solution, but without support. 

We use the on-premises version. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

If a company doesn't have people who are skilled in programming, they definitely should go with UFT, as it's simple to use and doesn't require programming knowledge.

UFT Pro is something that is completely new, and has been rewritten from the beginning. They may be trying to compete with Selenium, but Selenium is completely free, unlike this solution.

I'm head of testing services and we are partners with Micro Focus.

Since we started using the Quality Center for the integration of all Microsoft tools, things have been much easier for us. Whatever integration we use between the tools creates a complete package of one set of tools. Many of our customers use Jira and Confluence and we can see how these tools integrate even with these things.

The issue with all the integration is that it can become very costly and expensive and we'd like to be able to recommend one single tool that will do it all.

We've been using the solution for at least six years. 

The solution is stable. 

Our projects are generally relatively small and we haven't had any issues scaling to our needs. I'm sure it's scalable in a larger environment. 

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

The pricing and licensing can be a bit of a challenge. 

I definitely recommend this product. It's important to define your needs before choosing any solution. 

I rate the solution eight out of 10.

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

The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working. 

There is quite a bit of room for improvement. As time has gone on the product has failed to improve. Basically, Micro Focus' UFT (Unified Functional Testing) was a good product 15 years ago when it was first introduced. They have not really made substantial changes to it since then — which they should have done to make the product more useful and competitive. The gap between it and the competition has shown in the product's lack of development.

To improve the product they could better integrate the API and the GUI testing. At the moment, when you run the GUI testing, you run it in Visual Basic Script — which is a very old Microsoft product that Microsoft no longer supports. For the API testing, you have to write your tests in C# or C++. If you write a functional library for one test process, you can not use the same library with another test. A further problem is that even if you have a functional library written in VBScript, you can not use it for multiple projects. You have to make a copy of the library for each project that you use it with. Then, of course, every time you make a change, you have to replicate the change manually through the different projects and that is a real pain.

A new feature that I would like to see is better integration between the API and the GUI testing so that you could use the same libraries and the same scripting languages and so forth. That is a major missing piece because of their lack of effort in development over time.

The stability of the product is adequate.

When it comes to scalability we never had the opportunity to run UFT in parallel with multiple platforms, so I don't know that the product hits the mark at this point for the type of scalability we would want to test.

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.

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.

The initial setup was reasonably straightforward. I have no issues there. I don't remember exactly because it was a long time ago, but the setup was not excessively long. It was just like any basic software installation.

We didn't need to use a reseller or a consultant for the implementation. We did it on our own.

As far as comparing to other products, the licensing costs for UFT are very high. I don't remember the cost exactly. The maintenance of the service contract was very high as well and, frankly — compared with more modern tools — it was and is not worth it.

A good thing is that there are not any costs in addition to standard licensing fees, but the standard licensing fees are going to be high in comparison to other products so you don't gain anything.

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 because over the last 10 or 15 years this product, which was a superior solution at one point, has not really been developed to its capacity.

What’s awesome about it is you can use the same language the developers already use.

LeanFT integrates with our developers work-flow. Our developers can now perform automation using familiar tools, programming language, and IDE. This helps get the whole team involved in test automation.

In the next release I'd like to see HP enable LeanFT to work with Sauce Labs. I know HP has their own solution, but it would be better if it were more integrate-able in the spirit of being more open-source, more friendly.

We haven’t been using it that long, but it has been stable for the last month we’ve been using it. It works as advertised thus far.

Very positive: seems like it’s a lightweight solution that's not going to impact what we were already doing as it's just a "wrapper" on top of what we already do.

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

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.

It's very straightforward-- you just import a library like you would any other tool and go.

Smartbear.

To me, it has to be using the same tools that the developers already use and that it fits in with their workflow. Testers should be using the same tools as the developers, making the development process easier.

The fact that it is so easy to go between UFT with its large install base and LeanFT. Whoever has used UFT will quite easily become productive with LeanFT, but with the added benefit of “shifting left”, to move testing closer to the development cycle.

As the releases come, support for all technologies in the systems under test that UFT currently support will be the obvious place for improvement.

I have not been using LeanFT in a professional capacity yet. I have participated in the LeanFT beta testing program and in that capacity I used the product for three months.

Deployment, as far as it was completed during the beta test, went smooth and without complications. I have not yet tested the installation alongside UFT, as it is shipped with UFT 12.5.

As I tested the product during the beta test period, the product was obviously not completed, but that never affected stability. Any issues with functionality that I had was quickly and resolutely resolved.

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.

Setup simply installs the product as an add-in to Visual Studio or Eclipse. No other setup is necessary. It cannot be easier.

The product is new, but builds on a solution that has a long history. Comparable products do not, in my opinion, have as large a coverage of target technologies as LeanFT has.

Go for it, but do not expect that it will replace all other Test Automation products. This is a complement.

We use UFT Developer during the application testing process.

The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local. It does not require as much scripting.

A basic level of programming knowledge is definitely needed to use this solution. It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding. We are investigating solutions where a layperson, with an interest in automation, can begin to work with the tool.

I have been using this solution for one and a half years.

This is a stable solution and it is used perhaps three times per week.

We may increase our usage in the future but it depends on our clients and their requirements. If their operations increase then our usage will as well.

UFT Developer is easy to scale. I am not sure how many people use this solution in the entire company, although I can say that we have approximately nine people who use it in my group.

The technical support has been fine.

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

The initial setup is of medium complexity. The deployment took a little longer than we had expected. We had planned for one day and it took a few hours longer than that.

The deployment was done by four to five people from our in-house team. They are mainly IT architects.

The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another one.

We are considering moving to Katalon Studio in order to save costs. I am also hoping that it will be easier for people with non-programming backgrounds to use.

This is a good solution and I recommend it. I also recommend using Selenium if people want to use a more web-based application.

Overall, Micro Focus UFT is a good tool, but it is a little bit expensive.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

LeanFT's been very good. It's a little more complex than standard testing products like the standard UFT. It's a little more developer oriented. I'm not really a developer per say, but I was able to pick it up fairly quickly.

I think the biggest issues that I've seen, and this is a personal view of mine, is that most of the HPE products have a common look and feel to them. I'd really like to see it be a little more customizable to a use and user standpoint. For example. I happen to be colors blind, so I'd like to see more vivid colors on the UI, and things like that. It would make it a little more flexible from the customer standpoint.

I was formally an HP employee, so I've used the HP products in the past. I also was a former Mercury Interactive employee who was acquired by HP.

It's been extremely scalable as far as the testing that we've done with our customers. They've all been really satisfied with the scalability of the HPE products.

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.

Since it was a slightly different way of doing things, it was a little complex. It was just the idea of ... this is something new that we have to understand. It wasn't like we're building on a product that already existed, it was right out of the box. It's fairly new, so it was a little more complex that way but R&D made it very easy.