OpenText UFT Developer Reviews

Utilizing OpenText UFT Developer has led to significant cost savings and improved test automation efficiency. Organizations benefit from reduced technical time in test automation, and as usage scales, the cost per user decreases. A substantial return on investment is noted when comparing automated to manual testing, with savings reaching up to 80%. More users enhance benefits as they deliver increased testing, analysis, and defect identification, which contribute to a larger return on investment.

Enterprise users report that OpenText UFT Developer has high setup and licensing costs, with setup around €10,000 and floating licenses approximately $8,000 to $10,000 per year. While there are no extra costs beyond standard licensing, fees are often deemed expensive compared to other tools, such as open-source alternatives. Pricing depends on the model chosen, with options including cloud, on-prem, and permanent licenses. Licensees can still use the software without support after expiration.

• "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."

Companies utilize OpenText UFT Developer for automating tasks on diverse applications, focusing on regression testing, performance monitoring, and functionality validation. It supports Windows, web-based GUIs, and banking ATM applications. Users leverage it for integration with SAP and for testing both cloud and on-premises deployments. Its functionality includes screen capturing, recording, and test automation. Mobile apps, Java, .NET tech, and ERP systems also benefit, with OpenText assisting in testing and performance monitoring through LoadRunner or JMeter.

Technical support for OpenText UFT Developer shows mixed feedback. Some users find it effective with quick responses and direct access to developers, while others experience slow responses and overly complex processes. Users suggest improvements are needed in response times, availability, and problem-solving abilities. The transition from HP to HPE caused issues for some, but recent support has been noted as improved with helpful representatives assisting quicker access to required resources.

Many describe OpenText UFT Developer's initial setup as straightforward, emphasizing ease with minimal complexity. It integrates well with tools like ALM and Visual Studio, often requiring only standard installation procedures. Some face challenges with license issues or specific environment configurations, but emphasize available support. While experienced users find setup quick and uncomplicated, those new to the tool may encounter complexities due to its flexibility and options. Despite varying experiences, the deployment is largely manageable.

Users find OpenText UFT Developer highly scalable, especially with LeanFT's enhancements for continuous integration and flexibility. Many appreciate its ability to handle complex frameworks and the ease of integrating various applications. Some note it requires thoughtful design to maximize scalability. Licensing can be costly, affecting expansion. While some face challenges with compatibility and parallel testing, many users benefit from its developer-friendly approach, using it extensively across large enterprises and planning future expansions.

OpenText UFT Developer demonstrates mixed stability. Some users experience consistent stability and reliability, rating it highly, while others find it unstable, facing issues with integration, browsers, and updates. Frequent problems include crashes and memory leaks. Stability often depends on environmental factors, test complexities, and machine configurations, with users finding workarounds or adjustments necessary. Despite occasional problems, over time, the tool’s stability has shown improvements and is perceived as generally reliable by many users.