We performed a comparison between LEAPWORK and OpenText UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable of this solution is the no code option. It offers drag and drop when it comes to development and removes the need for a developer."
"The UI is user-friendly."
"It provides automated testing. Instead of us doing manual testing, we can utilize Leapwork, and it tests most of our critical processes. In the next phase, we also plan to do some process work with it, such as using Leapwork to create reports or provide certain extracts of data."
"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."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"The initial setup is difficult."
"The only thing that I don't like about the product is the need to deploy agents on the laptops of people doing the testing. So, you have an agent on a server, then you have an agent on the laptop of the person who is doing the testing, and that seems like a lot of stuff and a kind of anti-cloud. Why do I have to deploy agents on people's machines in order to do something in the cloud? I'm sure they're doing that so they can monitor their licensing and all that stuff, but it is not necessarily a friendly process."
"It is a very comprehensive tool, and there is a significant learning curve to being able to adopt the tool. Because it does so much, there is only so much that you can learn. You can, however, do some simpler things right away. They do have a kind of boot camp where some of their experts engage with you, and during that time, you can work on the top initiatives that you want to do, and that's a good process. After you start using the tool, there is a lot more that you would want to do."
"This solution could be improved by offering better reporting related to the integration into Azure DevOps."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"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, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"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."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"The pricing could be improved."
LEAPWORK is ranked 16th in Test Automation Tools with 3 reviews while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 14th in Test Automation Tools with 34 reviews. LEAPWORK is rated 7.6, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of LEAPWORK writes "The product has a user-friendly UI, and it provides good support, but it is expensive and difficult to setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". LEAPWORK is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify and froglogic Squish, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and Selenium HQ. See our LEAPWORK vs. OpenText UFT Developer report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
