OpenText UFT Developer Reviews

Adopting OpenText UFT Developer can halve technical testing times. It serves specific clients that can't be assisted with alternative tools. Broader usage lowers costs per capita, enhancing return on investment. Investing for a single user is costly, but using it for multiple users improves test automation, detection, and analysis. Many see significant returns, around seventy percent compared to manual testing, but emphasize the importance of widespread use to maximize benefits.

Enterprise buyers find OpenText UFT Developer pricing high, with setup costs around €10,000 and yearly license fees more than $10,000. The solution offers cloud and on-premise options, with licenses available as per-user, floating, or seat types. Although costs are high compared to open-source alternatives like Selenium, which is free, UFT suits larger enterprises seeking comprehensive integration into development processes. Users benefit from using the solution without incurring extra costs beyond the standard licensing fees.

• "If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
• "The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
• "Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."

Users primarily utilize OpenText UFT Developer for automating testing tasks across various platforms including desktop, web, and SAP applications. Automation of regression testing, functional testing, and monitoring of performance in production environments are key applications. It connects with on-premises and cloud-hosted environments to facilitate testing on different technologies, such as Java, .NET, and mobile applications. The tool supports stress testing, recording, scripting scenarios, and provides comprehensive analysis of results for IT infrastructures.

OpenText UFT Developer customer service and support receive mixed feedback. Some users find technical support responsive and beneficial, with efficient access to developers. Many note its slow response and limited problem-solving capacity. Feedback emphasizes support's inconsistent performance, varying from excellent to unsatisfactory. Users appreciate direct interaction with project managers and developers, though others point out unresolved bugs and lengthy processes. Overall, satisfaction levels fluctuate, with calls for faster, more knowledgeable assistance.

OpenText UFT Developer's initial setup is mostly straightforward. Users note it installs easily with minimal issues. Integration with existing systems, like ALM, is generally smooth, but some face challenges with licensing, compatibility, and environment setup. Complexity varies, particularly for those unfamiliar with the tool, yet many praise its simplicity compared to alternatives like Selenium. Some installations are quick, while a few organizations experience longer deployment due to specific integrations and technical requirements.

OpenText UFT Developer provides significant scalability, catering to cloud environments and complex systems. Many entities note its adaptability, especially when integrated with developer platforms like Eclipse. Scalability depends on the design framework. Users transition to LeanFT for enhanced flexibility, although scripting complexities and license costs may pose challenges. The application successfully supports enterprise-scale needs, with some pointing to the need for improvements in browser compatibility. LeanFT enhances scalability by moving functionality client-side. Entities are expanding user access gradually.

OpenText UFT Developer exhibits varying stability. Users find it generally stable, with some experiencing crashes or bugs, often influenced by external factors like Windows updates or browser settings. The platform's evolving nature requires users to adapt it to their changing needs. Some report needing specific configurations for optimal performance. While it performs better for simpler tasks, complexity may lead to decreased reliability. Users appreciate its training ease and find it more stable than comparable tools.