We performed a comparison between Micro Focus UFT Developer and Micro Focus UFT One based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Micro Focus UFT One ranks higher in this comparison. It is more up-to-date and provides for better integration with many of today's popular solutions and technologies.
"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 most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and 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."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"Integrates well with other products."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"It's simple to set up."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 14th in Test Automation Tools with 34 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish, Original Software TestDrive and Selenium HQ, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, UiPath Test Suite and Ranorex Studio. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. OpenText UFT One report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing 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.
Hi Subhash.
Both tools can:
UFT One - allows you to automate functional and regression testing for the widest range of applications and technologies can supports testing GUI, web, mobile or API applications.
UFT Developer - is powerful and lightweight functional automation software for Agile and DevOps teams, built specifically for continuous testing and continuous integration. It allows you to create tests in your favourite IDEs and to write robust and reusable test automation scripts using JavaScript, Java or C#. Get fast feedback from your test execution with the lightweight but detailed results report.
UFT One includes a licence to UFT Developer.
If you don't need the additional support in UFT One, the UFT Developer is the tool you need.