OpenText UFT Developer Reviews

The most valuable features are the ability to customize, if needed, and to integrate with ALM because its our test management. The ability to implement with Jenkins for dev ops is also a valuable feature.

In our case, because we’re in the insurance industry, we have technologies from 20 years old to brand new. That’s one reason that LeanFT is so great -- because it can support all those technologies, even the older ones.

In the next release, I'd like to see ties into C# and Java, enabling us to work more closely with development. However, from what I’ve seen, LeanFT object recognition looks great. The identifiers for an object can be the same for multiple objects, and test automation can detect that. But LeanFT object identification center allows you to see that the identifiers are not necessarily unique, which is very beneficial.

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.

It depends on how you design your solution. If you design a good framework then you can design a scalable solution.

Technical support was not very good. We do reach out, but often they're unable to help. Customer support was similar.

We are a subsidiary, so decision making was limited. Most recently they decided ALM would be the enterprise standard. For automation they decided to use UFT.

Fairly straightforward because it integrates well with ALM. One issue is that if you're using compass, which has its own Java versions etc., it can conflict with LeanFT.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor is compatibility with my systems, applications, platforms, and whatever apps I am using.

Automate where you can and also try to shift your testing to the left. Testing management is key.

The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency. 

The tool could be a little bit easier. 

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

I would rate UFT Developer's scalability an eight out of ten. 

Support is very good. 

Positive

The tool's setup is deep and it took me almost two to three months to complete. You need to have great knowledge of software transformation. I would rate the installation a ten out of ten. 

I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

The most valuable feature is the possibility to code the test framework with C# and Java and therefore, use the development teams.

The technical part of test automation does not need a separate technology for developing test suites for end-to-end testing, regression testing and user acceptance testing.

Improvement is still needed for stability and performance. Still, it is at the beginning of a technological shift for HP test automation. The tool would be best if HP made the OR functionality and performance similar to the HP UFT one.

The solution has been used in a pilot alpha testing project.

Yes – deployment was not yet production ready.

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

Scalability was not an issue for the pilot, and it's not expected to be an issue in the future, as all development resources can be used on an as needed basis.

The support in the alpha/beta test phase was especially good.

The technical support was perfect as we could talk directly to architects developers and product managers.

Previously we used HP UFT and Selenium because there was actually no alternative products at the market.

The setup was well-prepared, but quite complex. When related to our environment, there have been setup problems. These problems could be resolved by an intimate technical customer service.

The implementation happened in-house.

You could cut the technical part of the test automation processes by about 50%.

Setup cost was around €10,000. Day-to-day processes would be 0 as the technical part of test automation will be integrated completely into development. This will save the extra part of technical test automation, which sums up to the yearly license costs.

All options in the test automation market are evaluated at all times. Rational Robot, Tosca, Soap UI, etc.

Make sure that you have test management at the same level as test automation otherwise money will be lost.

The most valuable feature is that we have a test automation solution that is really developer friendly. So, you have Java as a programming language. You have Eclipse or the Intel HAS IDE and you can really use the development tools. That's the best part out of it. You can also have this with Selenium or any other developer friendly solution, but UFT Pro also supports different technologies. So, you can test web applications, you can test Java applications, you can test Windows applications. And, most other tools, at least the free-ware solutions, only cope with one specific technology.

Another big feature is the integration with ALM. It's quite easy to start the test cases from ALM and to have the results in ALM. And it's also possible to make business process tests with Lean FT or UFT Pro. And I think all these parts together make it the best possible solution.

For example, we had just recently had the new release of our web page, and there we had a lot of test cases for small tools like a calculator for tax savings when you invest in different products, or whatever. There were a lot of little pieces on the website which needed testing. And we had an agile methodology to develop the new website and from time to time a new tool got released on the test system. And then we needed little effort to automate it and do the tests. And also, we could redo all the tests when a new version was released. So, we always had the security that nothing important changed or nothing which already worked was destroyed with the new release.

There are still some stability issues. Also, the integration with ALM is not perfect. There issues with parameter parsing.

We don't have ALM Octane now and I've never used it, so I don't know whether it would beneficial. But I think we're too big to easily switch to another test management solution.

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.

We have around three and half thousand employees. It is quite scalable. It depends how you do it. You can make automated scripts which do not scale at all. But since it's a developer friendly tool, you have the ability to cut it in the right way to make modules, and then it is very nice to handle it with multiple applications with a lot of test cases.

Right now, we have a good experience with support because we quickly get to developers with issues. When we contact the support, if it is a bigger problem, we have a call or a session with the developers themselves and that's quite nice. They have also been at PostFinance twice. And this gives you a good feeling about being important and you think they care about you and they want you to have a product that works.

Since I used to use a lot of other automation tools, it was very straightforward. It is quite simple if you know Selenium or if you know IBM Rational Functional Tester.

Compared to IBM Selenium, LeanFT or UFT Pro is more stable. They have better object recognition functionalities and more support technologies. Maybe they have a bit less browser support than Selenium, but that's okay.

Compared to any of the competitors that I’ve looked at, the HPE tool is a bit smaller. So, it makes it more fun to use it because you don't have such a large application as the Rational test suite or the Functional Tester. And I think it was more stable. So, even at the beginning, we had fewer problems than with Functional Tester and object recognition. But, I think both tools are not bad.

The major advantage of LeanFT or UFT Pro is that it is easier to integrate it into ALM. So, with Functional Test we always had these space scripts in ALM, and then we had to call Functional Tester somehow and bring the results back to ALM. It's easier with LeanFT.

Try to build a test automation framework so that part of it could be managed by the development teams. And at least the page objects should be released together with the software to test. This makes everything easier for the test automation team. And makes the test automation solution faster.

We primarily use the solution to enable us to easily automate tasks on several different applications based on different technologies.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks.

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.

The stability of the solution is good.

The scalability is good.

Technical support is okay, as long as you pay for it. It's not free.

You don't need a lot of in-depth experience to handle the setup. It's enough if you read some documentation. There are plenty of tutorials to help you if you need it.

I handled the implementation myself.

Pricing depends on which model you choose. The cloud version has a monthly fee, whereas on-prem versions offer yearly or monthly fees. You can also purchase a permanent license. If your license expires, you will still be able to use the solution, but without support. 

We use the on-premises version. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

If a company doesn't have people who are skilled in programming, they definitely should go with UFT, as it's simple to use and doesn't require programming knowledge.

UFT Pro is something that is completely new, and has been rewritten from the beginning. They may be trying to compete with Selenium, but Selenium is completely free, unlike this solution.

It was very interesting to see that once we began using the traditional UFT for functional testing, we received a lot of feedback from our development and testing teams that it's clumsy, not modern, and so on. But once we upgraded to UFT Pro, it was an easy adoption, even though it's a commercial product. In that sense, it supports our approach in agile and DevOps deliveries really well.

The UFT Pro follows the same projects that are following the agile DevOps journey. They are also starting to use UFT Pro.

At the moment, we are happy as it is. We don't have any kind of specific technology requirements for improvements, at least not at the moment.

But, support for open source solutions, such as the Robot framework, which is actively used, might be really helpful.

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.

We are at a very early stage in implementing this solution. But at the moment it looks promising. Although, it is difficult to say how far it goes. But at least, so far, we have started.

So far, technical support is very good because we have been using HPE products, or the earlier Mercury products for a long time. We have a quite good collaboration with them. From that kind of background and knowing our kind of working environment and solutions, together with their technical support and help, we have been able to implement these tools in the right way the first time, without trying to invent the wheel on our side.

Setup was pretty straightforward. Obviously, we kind of had a bit of discussion internally, because we didn't take a traditional migration from the earlier product. We really started from scratch. That is still somewhat an issue for some of the deliveries, that they don’t want to use the agile method. But we have highly recommended this because they are two different worlds and that it would be better to plan it carefully and not just carry on all the crap from history.

Our development teams are using a lot of open source solutions, and other tools like JIRA. But for our business needs and purposes, we have seen that HPE solutions are still valid for our business. We need to have backwards traceability. We have to have the capability to show what has been done, what's been going on, and what. In some of the cases, there has been the discussions that, "Yes. We have all this information, but you have to go to the Jenkins, or this and that logs, and it's there." But that's not what the business wants to see. They want to have a high-level visibility on their business. That is why we are still keeping the HPE products, and probably also in the future we'll have them.

The fact that it is so easy to go between UFT with its large install base and LeanFT. Whoever has used UFT will quite easily become productive with LeanFT, but with the added benefit of “shifting left”, to move testing closer to the development cycle.

As the releases come, support for all technologies in the systems under test that UFT currently support will be the obvious place for improvement.

I have not been using LeanFT in a professional capacity yet. I have participated in the LeanFT beta testing program and in that capacity I used the product for three months.

Deployment, as far as it was completed during the beta test, went smooth and without complications. I have not yet tested the installation alongside UFT, as it is shipped with UFT 12.5.

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.

In my professional career as Test Automation Developer, I have mainly used UFT. While I will not switch to LeanFT completely, as the products are complementing rather than replacing each other, I will use LeanFT whenever projects dictate that test automation be done during the development process.

Setup simply installs the product as an add-in to Visual Studio or Eclipse. No other setup is necessary. It cannot be easier.

The product is new, but builds on a solution that has a long history. Comparable products do not, in my opinion, have as large a coverage of target technologies as LeanFT has.

Go for it, but do not expect that it will replace all other Test Automation products. This is a complement.

I'm head of testing services and we are partners with Micro Focus.

Since we started using the Quality Center for the integration of all Microsoft tools, things have been much easier for us. Whatever integration we use between the tools creates a complete package of one set of tools. Many of our customers use Jira and Confluence and we can see how these tools integrate even with these things.

The issue with all the integration is that it can become very costly and expensive and we'd like to be able to recommend one single tool that will do it all.

We've been using the solution for at least six years. 

The solution is stable. 

Our projects are generally relatively small and we haven't had any issues scaling to our needs. I'm sure it's scalable in a larger environment. 

We have a separate in-house team that deals with technical support. 

The pricing and licensing can be a bit of a challenge. 

I definitely recommend this product. It's important to define your needs before choosing any solution. 

I rate the solution eight out of 10.