What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus UFT Developer?

I rate OpenText UFT Developer an eight out of ten. I recommend it, but you must prepare the environment and infrastructure before applying the tool. You need to scan with user growth in mind. We needed to set up the environment to use it.

OpenText UFT Developer tool is a very good tool, but there’s another automation tool that is a very good competitor of UFT, which is Tricentis Tosca. Tosca is a test automation solution that is also very good. UFT is very good too. Some companies want to have all their tools from one company, like functional, network, and performance testing tools. If that is the case, then OpenText can be used for ALM, functional, and performance testing with LoadRunner and StormRunner. Similarly, Tosca is for functional testing, and NeoLoad is for performance testing and improvement. Both are good. AI has recently been implemented there. That is also improved. Using AI in UFT is more advanced now. Automation is very easy. But we need to use some basic best practices for UFT. That is not hard. UFT also provides tutorials. If someone uses the tutorials multiple times, the UFT practices help, but not completely. A complete framework needs to be designed by an experienced UFT Developer. With the help of a specialist, it can be exact. Best practices should be used for the tools. For UFT, as opposed to Selenium, all UFT tasks are easier. Overall, I would rate the product a nine out of ten.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. When I had challenges with scheduler and calendar control recognition challenges, I faced unresponsiveness. OpenText support (previously Micro Focus) and even SmartBear (OpenText Complete provider) just said , "The current version does not support it." They did not give me a roadmap. The challenge with big companies is that "it is what it is" and don't address customer problems directly. Wherever, Eggplant was a niche player, stepped in and readily demonstrated its support capabilities to solve my issue.

I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I would recommend that you ensure that the tool is supported subject to application recognition. I would rate Micro Focus UFT Developer an eight out of ten.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. I would recommend this solution to those who want to use it. For desktop-based applications, the automation is good. They offer wide support if you're stuck with anything. There are a lot of support groups like Stack Overflow and other community groups where you can find the resolution for a technical issue. There's a lot of support because it's an older tool. It's pretty comprehensive and easy to learn. The industry is full of open source and cheaper options because everything is moving to the cloud. For instance, Tosca poses a challenge to HP. Micro Focus should reduce the license cost. Otherwise, they will be very much cornered in the market.

Our customers are maintaining the solution versus us utilizing it by our engineers. We do not have that exposure to maintaining the solution year over year. I rate Micro Focus UFT Developer a seven out of ten.

I definitely recommend this product. It's important to define your needs before choosing any solution. I rate the solution eight out of 10.

It is a great tool. It is not really rocket science. Once you learn it, you can easily adopt it. I would rate Micro Focus UFT Developer an eight out of ten.

We have a lot of manual test cases that are still waiting to be imported into UFT. The way it was set up was that they imported Excel spreadsheets. They never went in and defined the test steps or integrated with our Jira requirements. My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to make sure that you've got your manual test steps documented somewhere for when the tests fail. In my case, I'm working with many tests that were written by other people. I'm trying to run them, and then debug when half of them are failing. There's no documentation around to explain what the tests were even supposed to be doing. So, the bottom line is to make sure that you've got documentation. I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

We are just customers and end-users. This is a client-based application. I'd advise other companies considering the solution to ensure that your organization is mature in the software development life cycle and that the organization has documentation, videos, and knowledge of where the testers can go for that information. It shouldn't be a repeat of a user's manual or a link to their documentation. They need to translate and synthesize the documentation into very bulleted items. If I have a user manual that is composed of five pages, I translate all that into three bullet items. The testers do not have time to go and read five pages. First of all, find out where the information is then find five pages of the manual. They might rather go to my tool aides and go bullet item, bullet item, bullet item, and done. Support group needs to put themselves in the shoes of the tester and synthesize the information into succinct and quick tool aides. While it would be easier for me to just put a link to a user manual, which is about a 2,000-page document, no one is going to go through it. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten as it requires a junior or senior tester that has done test automation before. You can't take a guide that likes to make diagrams and create test cases. It needs to be the lines of code. You need people who know the programming language. If you don't have that background, it is a very complicated tool for first-time users.

I would rate the UFT product 8 out of 10. It's cheaper, but they also have an enterprise license. If you take it, you get the license for both. However, we don't use both.

With the experience that I have, I think that it's very good, and I would recommend this solution to others. Again, with the knowledge that I have in the few weeks that I have been using it, I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

If someone is starting right from the beginning, I would not recommend they go with UFT. Instead, I would recommend Tosca. The good points in UFT are the cost, it's easy to use, the installation is quite clear, the licensing model is quite good, and the object recognition feature is very good. The con is that the code-based it not a good thing. Tosca has better features in terms of analytical capabilities. The impact analysis is available in Tosca, yet not offered in UFT. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Ultimately, due to the scripting, integration, and other functionality that is missing, we may switch to another solution in the future. I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

This is a good solution and I recommend it. I also recommend using Selenium if people want to use a more web-based application. Overall, Micro Focus UFT is a good tool, but it is a little bit expensive. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I requested a trial of the most recent version and I have not yet received a response. The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this solution is that I cannot automate everything. That had been my initial goal. Even with the problems that I have mentioned, I think that this is one of the best solutions on the market right now. I tried changing solutions but I was not able to fully automate my application. If they just improve the support then it would be great. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

My advice for those considering this product as a solution is that they should look closely at alternative products to make a good comparison of features, capabilities, and cost. At the moment we are also using a product called Katalon Studio, which is freeware and it does pretty much everything that we want it to do. The biggest lesson I've learned from using UFT is to compare solutions. I would go so far as to say that even if UFT were free, I would still prefer Katalon Studio. On a scale from one to ten where ten is the best, I would rate UFT Pro as only a five now. I would rate it so low because over the last 10 or 15 years this product, which was a superior solution at one point, has not really been developed to its capacity.

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.

Testing is much more complicated than presented by the provider. They make it look like it's easy, but that's not the case. There is a lot of work put into it and you must also maintain the scripts. Sometimes people think that you don't have to maintain it, but scripts will not update themselves. There is no artificial intelligence in these kinds of tools. For example, if you have a login page and you get an update then you also have to update your script. This is because it used an object repository where it put in some objects to verify it. When objects change, the script won't run or at least it will fail. There are already tools that have a functionality that can update the object repository that it uses because it sees similarities in the tests that would normally run. The tool sees an update to objects and it can interpret that as a correct version of the tests that should run. I would rate UFT overall as seven out of ten.

We use the on-premises deployment model. I would recommend the solution. I don't think there is any substitute for LeanFT as of now. Some users may be charmed by Selenium because it is open-source, but there is a good part of that community which has gone through the Selenium curve and they know how much time it takes to develop the test scripts with Selenium. If they were to evaluate LeanFT, they would easily see the difference. One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification is the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT offers that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects. After that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly. The most important thing we learned is that it really fits into the continuous testing model. There are many products out there which promise you continuous testing, but it can't be continuous unless it's with the developer. If it's with a developer you can be much more agile, you can be much more continuous, and have faster and shorter delivery times. Other than LeanFT, we didn't find any other product delivering that. There are many others, like Tricentis, etc. But all of these are independent tools and independent applications. Tricentis themselves said that they're supposed to be used by the quality testers and not the developers. Our approach was to have dev testers on the team, not quality testers. We have eradicated the QA role in our organization. Developers are testers. That's why we call them dev testers. They develop the code and then test it themselves and they are responsible for that. The accountability increases, the code quality increases and you have better productivity. I would rate this solution 8.5 out of ten.

I prefer other products like Selenium to UFT, but each product has its advantages. For example, in UFT we can test HTML protocol for the web applications and also desktop applications. Selenium is for web applications only. That is its limitation. If you have to test both and want to install only one product, UFT has an advantage. Because of all the problems and limitations of the UTF product, I would rate it at only a four out of ten (where ten is the best and one is the worst). By comparison, I would give Selenium an eight out of ten. You can see I think UFT is not my favorite product and it is not good for everyone.