UFT Pro (LeanFT) Room for Improvement

TestMana6b72
Research & Development Engineer at a insurance company with 201-500 employees
As far as things that can be improved, it is a good solution so I think I can only do a comparison. We also use QC/ALM (Application Lifecycle Management [Quality Center]). It's a global solution that is managed with information from UFC from all over the environment. It has to be integrated with UFT. Really UFT could have this functionality built-in. We have 40% advantages and 60% disadvantages in our setup of UFT. This is because with UFT, we also have the problem that we have to use Windows Server and I would like to use Linux. For Selenium, we can use Linux so we have good performance. But we can't use UFT with Linux. It is impossible because in UFT we have to develop for UFT with VBScript and VBScript is only for windows and not for Linux. Another problem currently with the UFT — I think it is resolved in the new generation of UFT — is that we can't run tasks in parallel. In the new version, we can improve our workflow if we can choose to allow multiple tasks at runtime. So there is a problem with that currently. In Selenium, our development is done with Java technology — J2EE. So if we have an online community and we have a Selenium grid, we can run multiple tasks in realtime. We can't do that in UFT now because of its requirements, so it's a problem for us. When they come out with a solution for this issue, the product can be more flexible like Selenium and it will be a great benefit to us. To make UFT better, Micro Focus has to make UFT work in a stable environment. Right now, UFT is a problem all the time. It would help to have a community and a special forum for UFT, and even that is missing. We have good forums in Java and for Selenium, so it is possible to get solutions easily for those products. I think it would not be hard to do for UFT, and it would be better for UFT users if we had a good website. Users could help themselves and share knowledge and address problems and make up for the lack of support. We also don't have training for UFT. It is like they just made a product and don't care to support it. It is a good product, but not so perfect that it doesn't need support. I have to go to France to get certified. We don't have that ability here in Morocco. We cannot send everyone there, so it is a problem. View full review »
Directinfo46
Director, Information Technology Infrastructure at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
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, Microsoft Edge, Chrome, Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers needs to be added. The default activation of the services should be reduced to a bare minimum. When you install it out of the box, it enables everything and slows down the system. This needs to be adjusted to improve performance. The solution should have better integration with the test management tool. View full review »
reviewer956898
Senior Test Automation Specialist at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
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. View full review »
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus, SeleniumHQ, Sauce Labs and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: November 2019.
383,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Phil Ward
Senior Test Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
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. View full review »
reviewer964113
IT Architect and Test Tool Designer at a comms service provider with 5,001-10,000 employees
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. View full review »
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus, SeleniumHQ, Sauce Labs and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: November 2019.
383,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Sign Up with Email