I would rate the stability an eight out of ten.

It is pretty stable. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. There are around 50 users in my organisation. 

Micro Focus UFT Developer is a stable solution.

The solution has been very stable. We just finished migrating the last group that was using 12.53 to 15. It's just very, very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

It is a stable product for our usage, which is mainly recorded and play actions. We also do functional testing via our automation team. They are not developers but know UFT well. We also use it for end-to-end testing. Any instability is detected via these internal processes. Although we do not test the entire regression suite, we use it for thorough testing of all our processes, as we have several long test iterations.

It can be very unstable. Basically, right now when I go running any of those test cases, I have to keep the remote machine that I'm running it on open, and can't minimize it or anything like that, because it's dependent on the actual location of the elements on the screen.

This is unlike Selenium, where you could run remotely and not have to log into the VM. On the UFT, you have to have it open and it's got to be up there. I'm assuming you are not running in on your own local machine, but rather in another environment. If you are running it on your own machine then it's going to be moving the mouse everywhere and you won't be able to get anything done. In my mind, this defeats the purpose of automation, to begin with, because you're stuck having to watch the testing.

Light users - it's only been out for a year, and we haven't been using it all of the year, but if you were to compare day to day usage with UFT, I would say it's probably less so. It seems to be a little more stable than UFT. We consistently see UFT crashes and things like that, and it's kind of just our cost of doing business. We're used to it, so when I go back to that staff satisfaction, that's a key factor there as well.

This solution is quite stable. We have been using it for ten years with no technical challenges involved.

At times, we do have some problems connecting with other ALMs because somehow it is a managed connection.

There are many sharp and live connectivities provided by the UFT with other ALMS. We may face some hacks at times.

It’s kind of irrelevant to us because it has to continuously evolve. We have to drive the product to adapt it towards our needs. So for us, we are responsible for the future stability of how we choose to adapt the solution to our needs. New technologies come out every single day, and we need to constantly evolve towards our new needs.

I am currently having some issues with stability, although I'm not sure if it can be attributed to UFT Pro or the virtual machine. The errors require me to restart. It may have to do with the simulated environment being 32-bit where the maximum memory is four gigabytes. It is possible that there is an error in the configuration of our virtual machine.

The stability of UFT Pro is much better now. It was a little bit slow with hanging on with your techniques, with your browsers and all of that. Very often, they opened a browser, and suddenly UFT didn't work. 

We are not allowed to be admin on our machines. We have to distribute out applications and that's a problem every time there is a new version of UFT. How do we do an MSI patch and what are they writing in that register? What is needed to be opened in that directory? And so on.

It is quite stable.

The UFT product is not stable. We often have issues in production that we have to deal with. We have specific people who are our support connections at UFT. If we need to report an issue we send an email to support and wait. After that, we correct the problem with their instructions or we install patches that they send. Patches are not a real solution. Because of this, the support does not seem very good to me in making the product stable. Patches do not make an application stable and may not be widely tested. They may cause other issues.

For comparison, for insurance clients, we use Selenium which is always stable or we fix it quickly ourselves.  We can't do the same with UFT. 

Actually, we communicate with our DevOps (Development and Operations). So, I integrated UFT with Jenkins for testing and better communications. But the integration is not stable. Because it is not stable and does not function well, we have an extra nightly job to use Jenkins for checking in if all the environment is okay with tests created in UFT. Some days this tests okay. Some days it does not test okay. If it is not okay we need to reboot the system and generate a new job. It has a problem 50% of the time. So, it's a problem. It's not stable.

I would rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten.

The solution is slightly buggy, but there are certain workarounds. It's a maturing product that's still being developed. That means there are certain bugs we have to deal with. For example, we have to restart the machines where the tests had been running for a sustained period because the solution crashes. This happens occasionally, not every time. 

For several browsers it needed some special settings which affected the stability of the product.

It's stable.

The stability is quite good and we haven't had any issues.

LeanFT is very new to us (we started six months ago). We are still in the process of using it and converting our scripts with it. That means we still need to see all of the built-in capabilities, but it is getting better and better.

The issues were variable. If you’re using the tools capabilities and the actual traditional test automation you put into a script, it can be unreliable. We try to use descriptive programming, but it becomes more of a test driver rather than creating automation for its test capabilities.

So far, we are very happy with stability, even though knowing that there is quite a lot of new development. But so far, so good. I have nothing bad to say.

Now stability is quite good. At the beginning, we had a bit of trouble with our company environment because the browser or the Java version is specifically configured and we had to fight a little bit to make it work correctly. Right now, we are very happy. Also, with the integration into ALM, it works quite good. We had some issues with special characters from ALM, to bring them to UFT Pro and backwards, but this is the biggest pain point right now, so it's not really a big deal.

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.

The stability of the solution is good.

The solution is stable. 

The stability of the product is adequate.

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.

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.

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.

It's a stable product.

For now it's stable.