Micro Focus UFT Developer OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Micro Focus UFT Developer is the #13 ranked solution in top Test Automation Tools and #17 ranked solution in top Functional Testing Tools. PeerSpot users give Micro Focus UFT Developer an average rating of 7.4 out of 10. Micro Focus UFT Developer is most commonly compared to Micro Focus UFT One: Micro Focus UFT Developer vs Micro Focus UFT One. Micro Focus UFT Developer is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 75% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 20% of all views.
Micro Focus UFT Developer Buyer's Guide

Download the Micro Focus UFT Developer Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: November 2022

What is Micro Focus UFT Developer?

Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT) is a powerful yet lightweight functional test automation solution, that supports a wide range of AUT technologies. Targeted to technical test automation engineers and developers/testers in Agile teams, Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT) is fully embedded in standard IDEs and integrates naturally with the Dev and QA ecosystems.

Micro Focus UFT Developer was previously known as UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT.

Micro Focus UFT Developer Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Micro Focus UFT Developer Video

Archived Micro Focus UFT Developer Reviews (more than two years old)

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Dhananjay Singh - PeerSpot reviewer
Team Leader at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Easy to use, the installation is clear, the support is good, and it has a good object recognition capability
Pros and Cons
  • "The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
  • "In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."

What is our primary use case?

In a very small location, we are using this solution for the infrastructure-related applications for testing and with a very low number of licenses, only two. 

We are planning to change to SAP S/4HANA.

What is most valuable?

The cost is the most important factor in this tool.

Feature-wise it's okay, and it's comparable with other tools. All of the features that we need for our testing are available. 

We have additional features such as reporting, and one other important feature, in UFT, is the AI-based object recognition plugin. This is a good feature in UFT.

What needs improvement?

UFT is more code-based, and we have to have knowledge of VB scripting to prepare the automation test cases. This is an area that is lagging behind with UFT.

One of the biggest challenges we face is not being able to easily interact with ALMs, other than HP ALM. This is an area that needs improvement.

In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable. 

Also, they can improve the coding interfaces to be easier and closer to English or any other international language, rather than a programming language.

For how long have I used the solution?

I recently started with this solution just two months ago, but the company has been using this tool for ten years.

Buyer's Guide
Micro Focus UFT Developer
November 2022
Learn what your peers think about Micro Focus UFT Developer. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: November 2022.
656,862 professionals have used our research since 2012.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

This solution is quite stable. We have been using it for ten years with no technical challenges involved.

At times, we do have some problems connecting with other ALMs because somehow it is a managed connection.

There are many sharp and live connectivities provided by the UFT with other ALMS. We may face some hacks at times.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have not yet explored this area, because we are extending our requirements and our requirement is not expanding a lot.

In the future, we have to scale it for mobile applications and for other non-UFT areas. We may have to purchase additional licenses for mobile testing.

I think that this tool is scalable, but have not used this feature yet.

How are customer service and support?

Technical support is good. 

They are very quick, the response time is very good. 

We are satisfied with the support.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was quite easy.

It's one installation file, then everything was just connected to the server. 

There is no complexity in the installation.

There are some tools in the market that are cloud-based and are much easier to use because you only have to log in and use it.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Pricing is the biggest feature. When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We are planning to use SAPS/4HANA for migration testing and to have more licenses for more testers.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Manager PMO Specialists at a construction company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Good stability but it is complex to set up and should support module-based testing

What is our primary use case?

I primarily use this solution for the automation of regression testing in SAP.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is stability.

What needs improvement?

This is a script-based tool and the usability needs to be improved.

Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful.

In the future, I would like to see module-based tests instead of scripting.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with UFT for about one year.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is quite good and we haven't had any issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is not an issue except that you need to create quite a few scripts. It is not easy to just create new test cases for new solutions. When you have to consider other solutions or applications then it's a bit tricky.

The number of people using the UFT application is quite limited, at perhaps three or four. However, there are a couple of hundred people responsible for performing the tests it creates.

How are customer service and technical support?

I would rate the technical support as okay, but not better. There are bugs between UFT and HTLM that they have not been able to solve. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is complex because of the integrations. A lot of knowledge is required to do the scripting, we did not have it, and it is difficult to find. Our deployment took about two months.

What about the implementation team?

A consultant assisted us with the deployment and we were satisfied with the service.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Micro Focus UFT Developer
November 2022
Learn what your peers think about Micro Focus UFT Developer. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: November 2022.
656,862 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Software Tester at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Object Model helps us automate our application testing, but the interface could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
  • "It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."

What is our primary use case?

We use UFT Developer during the application testing process.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local. It does not require as much scripting.

What needs improvement?

A basic level of programming knowledge is definitely needed to use this solution. It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding. We are investigating solutions where a layperson, with an interest in automation, can begin to work with the tool.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for one and a half years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

This is a stable solution and it is used perhaps three times per week.

We may increase our usage in the future but it depends on our clients and their requirements. If their operations increase then our usage will as well.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

UFT Developer is easy to scale. I am not sure how many people use this solution in the entire company, although I can say that we have approximately nine people who use it in my group.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support has been fine.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We are also working with Selenium, which is an open-source solution. We did not use another tool before these.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is of medium complexity. The deployment took a little longer than we had expected. We had planned for one day and it took a few hours longer than that.

What about the implementation team?

The deployment was done by four to five people from our in-house team. They are mainly IT architects.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another one.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We are considering moving to Katalon Studio in order to save costs. I am also hoping that it will be easier for people with non-programming backgrounds to use.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
DavidShephard - PeerSpot reviewer
DavidShephardPeer-to-Peer Program Manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User

Posted on behalf of the UFT Developer Product Team:

Thank you for taking the time to share your experience with UFT Developer. We’re glad to hear that the Object Model is a valuable feature that reduces scripting for you. Regarding Selenium usage, we’re happy to say that UFT Developer not only integrates with Selenium, but also greatly enhances Selenium usage. Also, UFT Developer can build on existing Selenium tests and even create new reusable Selenium tests within minutes with out-of-the-box IDE templates and an extension for Selenium WebDriver API that adds object locators and an Object Identification Center for more maintainable identifiers. There is more about UFT Developer’s open source integration here: UFT Developer for Selenium - https://admhelp.microfocus.com/uftdev/en/15.0/HelpCenter/Content/HowTo/Sel_LeanFT4SelT.htm

Regarding a ‘level of programming knowledge’ that is necessary for UFT Developer, it is true that UFT Developer is well-suited for the shift left, developer-centered tester. However, UFT Developer also supports Behavior Driven Development (BDD) using the Cucumber testing framework (see: https://admhelp.microfocus.com/uftdev/en/15.0/HelpCenter/Content/HowTo/Cucumber.htm?Highlight=keyword - which defines application behavior with simple English text using the Gherkin language. Another option would be to look at UFT One, our automated functional testing solution which allows for both a keyword-driven GUI testing (see: https://admhelp.microfocus.com/uft/en/15.0/UFT_Help/Content/User_Guide/CreateTestKWD_Task.htm?Highlight=keyword) capability as well as the drag-and-drop interface that is also well-suited for new users.

Please know the Micro Focus support team is always on hand to investigate and help resolve any issues you might be experiencing and are accessible via this link: https://mysupport.microfocus.com/group/softwaresupport/case-manager where you can log a support ticket. Micro Focus also has a very active user forum (see: https://community.microfocus.com/t5/UFT-Developer/ct-p/LeanFT), monitored by our R&D team, where users are welcome to share their thoughts about products, get solutions to issues, and suggest the enhancements which drive our products’ directions. Finally, I would strongly urge you to check out the latest version of Micro Focus UFT Developer 15.0, our most advanced release to date. You can learn more about this release here: https://community.microfocus.com/t5/Application-Delivery-Management/Introducing-UFT-Developer-15-0/ba-p/2744050 or here https://www.microfocus.com/media/what's-new/uft-developer-whats-new.pdf.

Programator at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Easy to deploy and automates many C# test scenarios in my hardware simulator
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
  • "The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."

What is our primary use case?

I am a software developer and at my company, we use this solution for testing a banking ATM application that is written in C#. There is a customer screen that is part of a simulator for physical devices and different scenarios such as card and PIN entry have to be tested. Example test cases can be things like insufficient funds to dispense or it does not have the required bills. Another might be that the printer raises a hardware error. There are approximately 500 scenarios to test and in some, it will reject the transaction.

We have UFT deployed on a TFS server and the test agents are running the scenarios on virtual machines.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases.

What needs improvement?

UFT is sometimes difficult to run. For example, the customer application is represented by an embedded browser control, waiting for input. If I want to recognize the browser then I need to first start the UFT Pro environment. This can be done from Visual Studio or the management console. The problem is that UFT is not able to identify the object that is inside the browser. In one of my test cases where I have to select the card, I need to right-click on a picture and then select an item from a drop-down menu. I had opened a ticket in version 14.02 and I spent two weeks speaking with people from Nigeria, trying to convince them that there is a bug in the software. I was finally redirected to the engineers who solved the bug, but they sent me a DLL patch as opposed to an official update.

The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement.

My simulator is able to create a receipt as if it were printed from the ATM. However, in the current version of UFT, I am not able to perform an OCR on it correctly. The accuracy is about 20%. When I told support that our code was written in C#, they showed us some Java code and were convinced that it would work simply by using Java instead of C#.

I would like the Object Finder Application Center to be improved. It is a plugin that is used to recognize the object on the screen, but it runs very slowly and crashes often.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been working with UFT since 2017, almost three years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I am currently having some issues with stability, although I'm not sure if it can be attributed to UFT Pro or the virtual machine. The errors require me to restart. It may have to do with the simulated environment being 32-bit where the maximum memory is four gigabytes. It is possible that there is an error in the configuration of our virtual machine.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I think that this solution is scalable.

All of our test cases run automatically and this solution is used by our entire team, which is about 15 people.

How are customer service and technical support?

I would rate technical support a one out of five.

When I ask for something on the Micro Focus page, I never get a reply. It also took me a long time to get a reply and the answers that I received did not always fit my inquiry.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Prior to my work with UFT Pro and C#, two others had been writing tests using UFT Basic. This requires that the tests be written in Visual Basic. They are very slow and the Visual Basic version generates a lot of duplicate code. The C# version allows me to use a special library that helps to avoid code duplication.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment took about two hours.

The only issue we had is that the ACL needed to be configured with the firewall.

What about the implementation team?

I deployed UFT Pro on my own.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I did evaluate other options in the interest of changing solutions.

I tried UFT Testpack, which is a library for testing but it isn't very scalable. I also tried Atrium from Selenium, but it only works on Windows 10 and it is unable to automate Java Swing applications. There is a software application from SmarteSoft that is written in Java, but I didn't find a tool that was capable of automating this application.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
DavidShephard - PeerSpot reviewer
DavidShephardPeer-to-Peer Program Manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User

Thank you for your time and effort in writing this review. It helps us better understand your experiences and also helps guide your peers when they evaluate solutions. It is very positive, which we like to see, especially as your version appears to be several years old, which after speaking with Stefan Untereichner, the Product Manager here at Micro Focus, leads us to highlight a number of major advances made to UFT Developer, as well as providing clarity on a few topics:
• Regarding OCR, UFT Developer’s OCR is also available in the .NET SDK as well (please learn more about this in the Help page for OCR Code Samples: https://admhelp.microfocus.com/uftdev/en/15.0/NetSDKReference/webframe.html#CodeSamples_.NET/CodeEx.NETOCR.htm)
• The Object Finder Application has been improved and has also been renamed to Object Identification Center. After updating to the newest version of UFT Developer, please let us know if the issues still exist.
• We’re sorry you were having issues connecting with customer support. For future issues, please submit your questions via the "Contact Us: UFT Developr" page at https://www.microfocus.com/en-us/products/uft-developer/contact
• For more information on the most recent release of UFT Developer, do read: “Introducing UFT Developer 15.0!” at https://community.microfocus.com/t5/Application-Delivery-Management/Introducing-UFT-Developer-15-0/ba-p/2744050. For software updates, please visit the Software Updates page at https://support.microfocus.com/downloads/swgrp.html. Or for a trial of UFT Developer, please visit the "UFT Developer - Free Trial' page at https://www.microfocus.com/en-us/products/uft-developer/free-trial

Senior Test Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Has a good recording feature but they could better integrate the API and the GUI testing
Pros and Cons
  • "The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
  • "The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use at this time is mainly to automate testing of Windows and web-based GUIs.

What is most valuable?

The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working. 

What needs improvement?

There is quite a bit of room for improvement. As time has gone on the product has failed to improve. Basically, Micro Focus' UFT (Unified Functional Testing) was a good product 15 years ago when it was first introduced. They have not really made substantial changes to it since then — which they should have done to make the product more useful and competitive. The gap between it and the competition has shown in the product's lack of development.

To improve the product they could better integrate the API and the GUI testing. At the moment, when you run the GUI testing, you run it in Visual Basic Script — which is a very old Microsoft product that Microsoft no longer supports. For the API testing, you have to write your tests in C# or C++. If you write a functional library for one test process, you can not use the same library with another test. A further problem is that even if you have a functional library written in VBScript, you can not use it for multiple projects. You have to make a copy of the library for each project that you use it with. Then, of course, every time you make a change, you have to replicate the change manually through the different projects and that is a real pain.

A new feature that I would like to see is better integration between the API and the GUI testing so that you could use the same libraries and the same scripting languages and so forth. That is a major missing piece because of their lack of effort in development over time.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using the product on and off for about 15 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of the product is adequate.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

When it comes to scalability we never had the opportunity to run UFT in parallel with multiple platforms, so I don't know that the product hits the mark at this point for the type of scalability we would want to test.

How are customer service and technical support?

We did actually contact the technical support for an issue once. The support was actually quite good. But, honestly, that is what I would expect for a product at this price point.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Micro Focus UFT is an okay solution for specific purposes that we use it for. I also use Katalon Studio and, since Katalon Studios is Java and Groovy-based, it is much better and more up-to-date for testing.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was reasonably straightforward. I have no issues there. I don't remember exactly because it was a long time ago, but the setup was not excessively long. It was just like any basic software installation.

What about the implementation team?

We didn't need to use a reseller or a consultant for the implementation. We did it on our own.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

As far as comparing to other products, the licensing costs for UFT are very high. I don't remember the cost exactly. The maintenance of the service contract was very high as well and, frankly — compared with more modern tools — it was and is not worth it.

A good thing is that there are not any costs in addition to standard licensing fees, but the standard licensing fees are going to be high in comparison to other products so you don't gain anything.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
IT Architect and Test Tool Designer at a comms service provider with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
A solution that is great for automating tasks, is stable and has an easy to learn system
Pros and Cons
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

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

What is most valuable?

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

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for four or five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of the solution is good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is good.

How are customer service and technical support?

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

How was the initial setup?

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.

What about the implementation team?

I handled the implementation myself.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

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. 

What other advice do I have?

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.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Senior Test Automation Specialist at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Can test many different protocols but it should be faster
Pros and Cons
  • "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."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We use both the on-premises and cloud deployment models of this solution. The testing tool needs to connect to the real environment and that almost always means on-premises. However, you can also use a cloud variant, but then you're working on virtual machines in the cloud.

What is most valuable?

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. That's a strong point of this tool because open source tools like Selenium can run only one protocol, like Web, for example. A lot of legacy systems do not use Web as their front end, however. They use a Windows-built .Net application or something else that is not web-enabled.

What needs improvement?

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.

I would like to see them add a feature that tells you if you can run parallel sessions in it. If it were a lot faster than the Chrome version that would be a major win.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using various versions of UFT for almost 20 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The product itself is a stable tool when running on a stable machine. However, a lot of things can influence the stability of the tool. Windows updates can have an influence on the stability of the product. Virus scanner local policies can have an influence on the stability of the product.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's a single run, so that means that you cannot usually use it multiple times in one session.

How are customer service and technical support?

The problem is that when you run this through a development tool you must be an actual developer to program the script language. Normally there are other script languages for example, .Net or Java. When you have Java development name, then this tool would normally not fit into it because it has another language. It chooses another language, so that would be complicated for developers to use it. And the problem is that sometimes the programming language it too complex for just help us to make scripts.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

The reason we chose this solution is because it is the company-wide chosen solution. It integrates with other tools, such as ALM, a test management tool. We are also going to move up to Octane, but Octane also integrates with UFT. Octane also introduces the possibility of connecting to other tools via Jenkins or Bamboo. The main connection with most ports will be UFT, though. If you look at other tools that are compatible in the market, such as IBM or smaller, open-source tools, they will fit for us, but they have the issue that they only work with one protocol. They only work with Web. If you have complex protocols, then you are forced to use the commercial solutions. IBM or another one that's based on another technique would then also work.

How was the initial setup?

For me the setup is simple but I think that when you have to do it for the first time, you have a lot of choices which you can make. Then it would be complex, but I think that with the knowledge that I have it is easy. I can do the installation of such a tool in 30 minutes. It can also be set up in collaboration with other tools, but then you have to set some environment settings before you can do that. If you do not know that, then you will need to search for that information before you have the answer. That's some knowledge that you have to be aware of.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
Don IngersonQA Automation Engineer at Precise Circuits, Inc.
ExpertTop 5Consultant

Interesting article. Referring to your comment about having to update the script when the UI changes, you are correct. I have found that running in “Maintenance Mode” is the quickest way to update a script when the UI changes.

Director, Information Technology Infrastructure at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Easy to use for test data management and client application testing
Pros and Cons
  • "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."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution for automation testing.

What is most valuable?

The test data management is very easy to use. It is a very valuable feature. The client application testing is relatively easy in UFT as well.

What needs improvement?

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, Microsoft Edge, Chrome, Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers needs to be added.

The default activation of the services should be reduced to a bare minimum. When you install it out of the box, it enables everything and slows down the system. This needs to be adjusted to improve performance.

The solution should have better integration with the test management tool.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for four years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is slightly buggy, but there are certain workarounds. It's a maturing product that's still being developed. That means there are certain bugs we have to deal with. For example, we have to restart the machines where the tests had been running for a sustained period because the solution crashes. This happens occasionally, not every time. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is quite scalable. You can go to thousands of developers because it works on the client-side. UFT itself has limitations, but when you move to UFT Pro, which is now called LeanFT, it is moved to the client-side. Scalability has improved significantly.

We have about 40 developers on the solution currently. We use it extensively as part of continuous testing and we intend to do have 100 people for automation testing. This wasn't possible earlier because it was not at the developer end. 

Since LeanFT gets pushed to the developer, it's on the same IDE, and it always has the developers developing the code. Alongside co-development deal, the same developer also develops the test scripts. We are using it extensively and we intend to achieve 100% coverage for automation testing. 

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is not good.

It's a new product and the developer community's using it aggressively and it's fitting in well with the dev-ops life cycle as part of continuous testing. The demand is high, the product is new, but the product support team is not able to cope with the dynamic requirements from different customer segments. Support is very slow in addressing issues because of these dynamic requirements.

In our case, eventually, the company arranged for the LeanFT project manager and global project manager to come to our office to spend two days and listen to our concerns and to prioritize addressing those concerns. I think that until the product is matured, the support will take time to stabilize.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

No other product has been able to provide continuous testing and to make a developer responsible for automation testing and all the tools needed except the LeanFT. Mainly, there was only one competitor, Selenium, which is open-source. Since it's open-source, it has its own limitations, which is why we did not choose them.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was very straightforward.

What about the implementation team?

We implemented the solution on our own.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user

Worksoft is so much better

Research & Development Engineer at a insurance company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Helps to determine problem areas but it has many problems and limitations
Pros and Cons
  • "It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
  • "It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."

What is our primary use case?

We use UFT Pro for all user testing platforms. We use the standard installation but we use UFT in two models. One is used for testing all functionalities in our environment and the second is one we are developing to use as a solution to test the availability of the environment in production. So UFT will check out the performance of the production environment every 12 minutes to be sure that the entire environment is stable. If we don't have any problem, the information is stored in a database and we do a BVD (Bank Vault Drawer) analysis of the information in the database for checking all banking applications.

The application we are developing is J2EE (Jave Enterprise Edition) and we will have the information about the functionality. If we have a problem we call a team to send issues to them so they will work on this application to correct the problem in production. Using the same of monitoring, we will be able to monitor all availability and all access to an application really using only UFT.

We use UFT to model for testing functionality in environmental tests, and after that, we use UFT to check and monitor all access and all applications to be sure these things are correctly functioning or not.

How has it helped my organization?

It gives us the opportunity to serve banking clients while conforming to industry regulations. 

What is most valuable?

The ability to evaluate live applications in our production environment for unusual behavior and determine problem areas and solutions is the most valuable aspect of this solution.

What needs improvement?

As far as things that can be improved, it is a good solution so I think I can only do a comparison. We also use QC/ALM (Application Lifecycle Management [Quality Center]). It's a global solution that is managed with information from UFC from all over the environment. It has to be integrated with UFT. Really UFT could have this functionality built-in.

We have 40% advantages and 60% disadvantages in our setup of UFT. This is because with UFT, we also have the problem that we have to use Windows Server and I would like to use Linux. For Selenium, we can use Linux so we have good performance. But we can't use UFT with Linux.

It is impossible because in UFT we have to develop for UFT with VBScript and VBScript is only for windows and not for Linux. Another problem currently with the UFT — I think it is resolved in the new generation of UFT — is that we can't run tasks in parallel. In the new version, we can improve our workflow if we can choose to allow multiple tasks at runtime. So there is a problem with that currently. 

In Selenium, our development is done with Java technology — J2EE. So if we have an online community and we have a Selenium grid, we can run multiple tasks in realtime. We can't do that in UFT now because of its requirements, so it's a problem for us. When they come out with a solution for this issue, the product can be more flexible like Selenium and it will be a great benefit to us.

To make UFT better, Micro Focus has to make UFT work in a stable environment. Right now, UFT is a problem all the time. It would help to have a community and a special forum for UFT, and even that is missing. We have good forums in Java and for Selenium, so it is possible to get solutions easily for those products. I think it would not be hard to do for UFT, and it would be better for UFT users if we had a good website. Users could help themselves and share knowledge and address problems and make up for the lack of support. We also don't have training for UFT. It is like they just made a product and don't care to support it. It is a good product, but not so perfect that it doesn't need support. I have to go to France to get certified. We don't have that ability here in Morocco. We cannot send everyone there, so it is a problem.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using this solutions for five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The UFT product is not stable. We often have issues in production that we have to deal with. We have specific people who are our support connections at UFT. If we need to report an issue we send an email to support and wait. After that, we correct the problem with their instructions or we install patches that they send. Patches are not a real solution. Because of this, the support does not seem very good to me in making the product stable. Patches do not make an application stable and may not be widely tested. They may cause other issues.

For comparison, for insurance clients, we use Selenium which is always stable or we fix it quickly ourselves.  We can't do the same with UFT. 

Actually, we communicate with our DevOps (Development and Operations). So, I integrated UFT with Jenkins for testing and better communications. But the integration is not stable. Because it is not stable and does not function well, we have an extra nightly job to use Jenkins for checking in if all the environment is okay with tests created in UFT. Some days this tests okay. Some days it does not test okay. If it is not okay we need to reboot the system and generate a new job. It has a problem 50% of the time. So, it's a problem. It's not stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

You can scale the product in some ways by integration. You must purchase expensive licenses which they have two kinds: seat licensing and concurrent licenses that can be shared. Each license is expensive, so scaling is expansive.

How are customer service and technical support?

The support for UFT is not good. When we send email to forums or support, we may get a response, and maybe we won't. When we do, the solution is not always good.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I switched from development to quality testing. Since that time, I used many products including UFT. We had some solutions in basic. After that, I used several products for testing including UFT, Selenium, Cucumber, QCALM (also known as just QC), Dynatrace and more to check on the environment that things like memory and CPU were functioning as expected. Some of these things I would still use depending on the situation. It is not necessarily the product that made us need to switch to UFT. It is the business need and regulations.

How was the initial setup?

Our installation was straightforward. We install the instances ourselves.

What about the implementation team?

We use our own team who works to do the installation and maintenance.

What was our ROI?

It works as a solution to serve a certain clientele that we cannot serve with other products.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I think the cost of UFT is too high and obviously expensive, especially if you consider that there are other even better products, in my opinion, that are open-source. Because of the expense, we use UFT only with big companies. For a small company with a smaller budget, we can't choose UFT because UFT is very expensive.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Because we need to properly support people in banking and follow regulations, we use UFT. It is really more of a political decision than a proper choice as to the products we would prefer to use.

We had Selenium first because it runs on Java — which is a stable language — we could use it and adapt it for all we needed to do. As a developer in Java with 10 years of experience, I could resolve our problem myself and not need any help. If I have a problem, I check the internet, I go to stackoverflow.com or visit one of the many forums for Java. So I guess my problem is that with Selenium I can check the problem, fix it myself, and I can do it right away without having to wait for a response from support. 

A second benefit to Selenium is that it is open-source. It's not a costly choice. We have the opportunity to install in whatever platform we want, and that is good for us — It could be Unix, Windows — It doesn't matter. It is good as a more flexible solution. 

Third, we use the platform for continuous integration. We have Dockers which we use for all containers and helps us prepare all our environments in simple ways. It's very easy to use, very easy to deploy, it's very easy to install and very easy to understand. The framework we use with Selenium is something we can use for all the functional testing for insurance products. Selenium would be what I would use for banking if it were possible.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
DavidShephard - PeerSpot reviewer
DavidShephardPeer-to-Peer Program Manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User

We appreciate your candid feedback on LeanFT. This helps us immensely and please be assured that Product Management have been informed of you comments and we will endeavor to respond shortly.

it_user366099 - PeerSpot reviewer
Entity Manager at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
It would be nice if this could be entirely automated. It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HP.
Pros and Cons
  • "It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
  • "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."

What is most valuable?

It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE.

How has it helped my organization?

The benefits. We're trying to maximize our automation testing, so it's a new authorization for us and we have more time to ... If we automate the test, we have more time to do something else.

What needs improvement?

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. For the moment, it's people who have to perform this task.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

For now it's stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have just started. We have one person who use it. We have in the future plans to expand it to the whole company.

What other advice do I have?

They connected 2C and UC so we can use 2C for the test and UC for information.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Jonathon Wright - PeerSpot reviewer
Director Testing & Quality Assurance at WBF international vice President
Consultant
Continuous testing, assessment, continuous insight and quality. LeanFT supports the entire end-to-end stack, from problem definition to solution delivery

What is most valuable?

I work a lot with guys who work with meta-mathematics, like applied maths and quantum mathematics. So for us, the most important feature is the ability to handle complex algorithms, such as fuzzy logic techniques which is the first step towards artificial intelligence in our field. The support for containerisation and continuous learning, adapting to our needs like support for DevOps practices, is paramount in our work.

How has it helped my organization?

By strengthening our understanding of our problems, HP’s solution allows us to be able to define problems. From an executive level to the lowest level, every company needs to be able to understand the infrastructure of every single aspect of challenges that businesses face today. It has helped us be able evolve to change.

What needs improvement?

In future releases, I'd like to see disruptors such as IOT and test drones. For some of the new stuff that’s coming through, we need to have a clear, well-defined road map of when we’re going to receive new capabilities and new features. This allows us to plan and better work with our customers so that we know exactly when to tell our customers to expect these new capabilities. These industry disruptors actually shape how companies are able to deal with these new technologies. So there’s always room for improvement.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It’s kind of irrelevant to us because it has to continuously evolve. We have to drive the product to adapt it towards our needs. So for us, we are responsible for the future stability of how we choose to adapt the solution to our needs. New technologies come out every single day, and we need to constantly evolve towards our new needs.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It’s designed for scalability. Cloud maps and complex ecosystems, which we’ve got today, even the internet, they’re all made up of nodes. And being able to scale is paramount to evolving those nodes. This solution gives us the ability to scale however we like, which is why we use it. There’s no use having 50,000 nodes that run wild and can’t be controlled, so allowing us to control it is the value of the product.

How are customer service and technical support?

My view is that we have to have access to the product boards in order to give feedback on how the direction of the product is going. Technical support is good right now, but we, as users, need to be able to own control of how HP chooses to change the product.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I believe in evolution before revolution. I actually saw the birth of the product, which arose through demand from R&D teams to create it in the first place. This has been a global need from a tier-one investment bank that needed a solution that could stack across that many. One of the things I wrote was a charter that stated what we needed in terms of an automation solution for our needs.

How was the initial setup?

Within a week, two of my global customers were able to leverage their automation through this solution. The adaptability of how this slotted in was just amazing, which was incredibly efficient. Our customers demand these results quickly, and this solution was able to deliver extremely well.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Tools like this only existed within companies, but now with the advent of HP’s product, we’ve been able to see a solution that can address problems that arise in the workplace. The open innovation is now able to be integrated, and we hadn't see a solution that was open previously.

What other advice do I have?

First, continuous assessment, continuous insight and quality, as well as testing that continues to be driven onwards. We have to think about the end-to-end stack, from problem definition to solution delivery, a solution that sees the whole end-to-end lifecycle of the application. The whole vision is important for me.

The problem with automation is that, to research products, if you type in Google what you want to look at, you see a generic subset of the information that applies to you. If you’re paying for something, evaluate that against your own needs and your own company. Your choice of vendor should be working with you in working through your needs specifically from now on and into the future; and if they don’t, don’t choose them. You have to understand where you are now and where your tool should get you to.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Alex Chernyak - PeerSpot reviewer
Alex ChernyakCTO at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
Real User

Corey - you might want to ask your customer to try ZAP-fiX add-in (http://zaptest.com) for HP UFT. ZAP-fiX allows using UFT with dynamic and visual based object recognition. Absolutely agnostic to GUI APIs and automates ANY software app, as well supports Agile/CI development.

See all 2 comments
PeerSpot user
Sales at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
MSP
It supports our approach in agile and DevOps deliveries.

What is most valuable?

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.

How has it helped my organization?

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

What needs improvement?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

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.

How is customer service and technical support?

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.

How was the initial setup?

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.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

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.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user671379 - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
Vendor
Gives us the ability to find and create different objects.

What is most valuable?

We use UFT Pro together with other test organization tools. There are many testers or developers that are not used to UFT. They haven't been using it in many other places. But when they've been working with it for a while and they see the complexity when you're doing real and tough test situations, then they see that this kind of tool is very, very good.

How has it helped my organization?

The benefit is the ability to find and create different objects.

What needs improvement?

The tool is not the problem. The problem is that we can't get the tool working, because there are other issues. We had a meeting with all the banks and several customers had the same problems. There should be a smarter and quicker way to upgrade UFT Pro.

It must be on the roadmap now, because they really lost with Mobile Center when they released a new version and it was not backwards compatible. It's not very easy for big companies to provision new versions. We have 38,000 PCs in organization, and we're not allowed to do anything on them. Everything has to be taken step-by-step. It does have a learning curve.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of UFT Pro is much better now. It was a little bit slow with hanging on with your techniques, with your browsers and all of that. Very often, they opened a browser, and suddenly UFT didn't work. 

We are not allowed to be admin on our machines. We have to distribute out applications and that's a problem every time there is a new version of UFT. How do we do an MSI patch and what are they writing in that register? What is needed to be opened in that directory? And so on.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We bought small, five-license versions of Test Director from Mercury in 2007 and it has continuously grown since then. Today, we have 600 users and 130 active projects. The environment gets bigger and bigger all of the time.

How was the initial setup?

The first time we installed was a long, long time ago. It's complicated to upgrade.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user671328 - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Automation Engineer at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
We have a test automation solution that is really developer friendly. You can really use the development tools.

What is most valuable?

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.

How has it helped my organization?

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.

What needs improvement?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the 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.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

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.

How is customer service and technical support?

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.

How was the initial setup?

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.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

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.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
PeerSpot user
it_user313965 - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant with 10,001+ employees
Vendor
Being able to code tests in C# is valuable, though its stability needs to be improved.

What is most valuable?

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

How has it helped my organization?

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.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

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

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

Yes – deployment was not yet production ready.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

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.

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service:

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

Technical Support:

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

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

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

How was the initial setup?

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.

What about the implementation team?

The implementation happened in-house.

What was our ROI?

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

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

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.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

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

What other advice do I have?

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

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user313965 - PeerSpot reviewer
it_user313965Consultant with 10,001+ employees
Vendor

Its time for an update:

Actually we have LeanFT now running for a year implementing new projects using the same framework we were using before for UFT.

From the valuable features we use Java and could make use of our experienced programmers to optimize the framework code. The E2E testing still need improvement as we did not yet integrate it in ALM - nor the Jenkins processes. The OR functionality of UFT is still missing.

We will continue to setup new projects with LeanFT, especially when moving the organisation to agile methodologies. Still the old UFT framework does the massive regression workload at 90%+...

it_user470490 - PeerSpot reviewer
Technologies Consultant at a tech company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
It gives us the opportunity to introduce developer testing. They can use the same language that they're using for their unit testing.

What is most valuable?

Basically, before LeanFT was introduced by HPE, I was looking at a solution similar to Selenium to integrate some scenarios that UFT was doing well for us; we had to look for other solutions with LeanFT-like leverage. The most important thing about LeanFT is that it gives us the opportunity to introduce developer testing. Initially, because UFT was VBScript based and because of the infrastructure, developers wanted to contribute toward testing, but could not, so they used VBScript and went to eLanguages, which they can use with their development like Java or C#.

They can use the same language that they're using for their unit testing, so they can contribute to that in the very beginning of the lifecycle instead of after the application has been fully developed, at which point it is tested and comments are made on the features.

That is the main aspect: we can put the developer into the testing scenario.

How has it helped my organization?

Initially, although they developed some in-house tools, we were looking for a third party to lower the speed provided. With LeanFT, we are trying to create a kind of hybrid infrastructure where we can use our existing scripting and in the same infrastructure we can use LeanFT.

What needs improvement?

I think the one thing we're basically asking for should be JavaScript support, but I think they will start adding JavaScript support in the future. We haven't moved into that; we’re still into LeanFT. We're still finding out what's in there. Once we know what we can really do in LeanFT, then I think we can start providing feedback regarding enhancements we want to see in the solution.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

LeanFT is very new to us (we started six months ago). We are still in the process of using it and converting our scripts with it. That means we still need to see all of the built-in capabilities, but it is getting better and better.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Obviously, we are planning to scale in the future because with LeanFT via the service pack, we can do user checking with continuous integration tools, which was initially not possible with the UFT, so we are trying to convert as many scripts from UFT to LeanFT. It will give us the most flexibility with more ways of working with the CPU.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support has been good so far. Sometimes it takes minutes, sometimes they take more time, but most of the time they're good.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We are doing a lot of testing and there are some scenarios where UFT does not fit into the scenario. Since then, we have been looking for a solution. Initially, we were looking at an open-source solution such as Selenium or some third-party tool to learn. We also wrote some of in-house processes, but they are not getting combined with ALM into the single repository, so we are looking for a sub-solution. We kept telling HP that we needed a solution; otherwise, we had to move from UFT and ALM. Ultimately, they told they came up with LeanFT and you can use it with either Eclipse or Visual Studio code.

How was the initial setup?

I won't say initial setup was complex, but it was not clear how to setup because there was an issue with the licensing. The same licensing was not working with UFT that used to work before, but we got in touch with HP customer support, they got back to us and since then it has been very smooth sailing.

What other advice do I have?

It depends on whether you already have a testing tool that is based on a different infrastructure, such as UFT or Selenium. Then, see how smooth the transition will be. However, to start from scratch, start with LeanFT as opposed to another solution because it can give you the power of managing your tests in ALM and the single repository so you don't have to worry about it. Once you install it, it is kind of the best tech with web-based infrastructure, so you don't have to worry about quality control and so on.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user482850 - PeerSpot reviewer
Enterprise DevOps Leader, Program Manager at a media company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
I believe the main feature for using it is the flexibility across different platforms. It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs.

Valuable Features

I believe the main feature for using it is the flexibility across different platforms. For example, I can use it whether it's Eclipse using any of the programming languages. The multi-platform usage of LeanFT is really useful.

Improvements to My Organization

It's still in the early days, but still I see that we'll move over to it fore the effort savings once the LeanFT roadmap comes into place.

Room for Improvement

It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari. That's a very key requirement for my organization.

Scalability Issues

It's very scalable. Given the power that it provides in terms of any programming language and any development platform you can use it on, such as Eclipse or any ID platform. So definitely it's more scalable but still there will be room for improvement in terms of the Mac browsers compatibility/support.

Customer Service and Technical Support

We hardly have incidents. There hasn't been much activity as compared to UFT. We will see how it goes in the future.

Initial Setup

The complexity was pretty much okay, it's acceptable, so that was good. Once you implement the infrastructure within the organization, the complexity is pretty much similar to any other automation tool.

Other Solutions Considered

We didn't actually choose it. Our customers provide LeanFT, so we started using it.

Other Advice

We're still early on with our use but there are a lot of good things that have been promised. Those results have to be realized now. What has been told so far as well as the roadmap which I have been told should come into place pretty quickly.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user485034 - PeerSpot reviewer
Software QA Lead at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
It's pretty easy to set it up. I'd like it to support additional technologies.

Valuable Features

I would say the most valuable is that we can get people started off really quickly on solutions because we've been partners with HPE for a long time and it helps us tailor the product to ours needs. When we have issues with something we can get support directly from HPE since we paid for it.

The fact that it works with a vast number of technologies works for us because our internal customers use the tool for testing a lot of different applications. That's probably the best feature that it has for us.

Improvements to My Organization

There's a lot of centralized testing from some perspectives and our main goal is to provide for a bunch of different groups at a lower cost so we centralize licensing and distribute it to various people. The biggest benefit of that is that it allows us to empower the people that need the solutions instead of manually having them develop the solutions on their own.

Room for Improvement

LeanFT could support additional technologies because we use it for a lot more than just web and Java and some Windows apps. Further support for other technologies would be nice. I can't rattle any off the top of my head but ones that we use internally.

Scalability Issues

We don't scale it out on as large of a basis as ALM.

Customer Service and Technical Support

Our biggest issue was in the switch over from HP Inc. to HPE. I think we had some trouble getting in touch with higher level support so we spent a lot of time going through basic support where the people that work with the tools have a lot of experience with the tools. We think that it would be better if we could bypass the lowest levels of support on some issues. I can understand the process that we usually have to go through but more recently our reps have been helpful in getting us to the people that we need quicker so we can get a resolution.

Initial Setup

I'd say to set it up it's pretty easy. Defining a standardized way that everyone could use it is a little bit harder. It's a very complex tool, there's a lot of ways to use it so I don't know if it's a limitation of the tool per say as just a common industry problem. I wouldn't say that there's anything that made it hard to get to the customers and to start utilizing it.

Other Advice

It's newer so it doesn't support as many technologies which makes the investment a little bit harder for us to absorb more licenses than we currently have or to justify buying any more licenses than we currently have because it only supports a certain subset of our customers.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user484959 - PeerSpot reviewer
Director, Service Transition and Quality Management at CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield
Vendor
We use it to streamline workflow and enable productivity in a business context. I'd like to be able to do headless scripting and not just always be UI serving.

Valuable Features:

LeanFT is used a lot more by our less experienced testers and developers who want to get more point-and-click type automation. Then obviously I also manage the automation team, so we use UFT for a ton of all of our XLC automation as well as anything with a UI. So we also bring it into our business functions as well. If we need to do clean-up, data entry, management of manual tasks where you're putting yourself in a UI scenario, we'll run scripts for that for productivity.

We pretty much use that to streamline workflow and enable productivity in a business context in our business unit as well as in our IT shop, so just reducing workload on IT people as well as testing. It's used pretty extensively beyond that.

Room for Improvement:

I'd like to not have to use Selenium. I'd like to be able to do headless scripting and not just always be UI serving.

Stability Issues:

It's stable.

Scalability Issues:

We're already at enterprise scale, so it's used across the enterprise. I would say that we're at that point.

Initial Setup:

I have an entire team, so I'm a director and I have an entire tools team that does that. I did get involved in the planning and the strategy of how we're going to do it. My team said that first installation is relatively easy. When we go to upgrade and migrate, that's where there's pain.

Other Advice:

We're still trying to get the adoption on that for the user community. It's very usable though. I rate adoption pretty high, so when people are using it, for instance, UFT, I'd definitely give that a ten because we use that a lot. I'd like to see some enhancements in the product, and we're working with HPE on that.

Have a well-defined process, have a strong reporting structure, meaning in your process you want a lot of measurability. If you define your output, the reports and the questions you need to answer from what you're doing, which your process should be managing for you. In our company, we are very specific about what our executives and stakeholders want.

We have a very well-defined set of measurements that we have to take. We then put a process designed to ensure those measurements are always taken. That then allows you to deal with your outputs and your reporting structure, which then allows you to properly architect your tooling. The technology is very flexible. You have to decide as a client area how you really want to use it and that's going to start with what your business needs are the values that you're trying to get out of it.

That's the biggest advice that I have, it's not even on the technology. The technology will do great things for you if you have a plan and a structure and you know what you want it to do for you. Half the time they don't know, they want the tool to do it for them and it's the other way around. So that's what I advise people to do.

Think about it, have a vision, have a plan, tie that to outcomes, and measure those outcomes. If you're answering the right questions and asking the right questions, your technology will really enable you. You've got to look at it from that standpoint.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
PeerSpot user
it_user469167 - PeerSpot reviewer
Solution Architect at a tech company with 501-1,000 employees
Vendor
I'm not really a developer per say, and I was able to pick it up fairly quickly.

Valuable Features

LeanFT's been very good. It's a little more complex than standard testing products like the standard UFT. It's a little more developer oriented. I'm not really a developer per say, but I was able to pick it up fairly quickly.

Room for Improvement

I think the biggest issues that I've seen, and this is a personal view of mine, is that most of the HPE products have a common look and feel to them. I'd really like to see it be a little more customizable to a use and user standpoint. For example. I happen to be colors blind, so I'd like to see more vivid colors on the UI, and things like that. It would make it a little more flexible from the customer standpoint.

Use of Solution

I was formally an HP employee, so I've used the HP products in the past. I also was a former Mercury Interactive employee who was acquired by HP.

Scalability Issues

It's been extremely scalable as far as the testing that we've done with our customers. They've all been really satisfied with the scalability of the HPE products.

Customer Service and Technical Support

We've gone through the standard customer support and it’s been good. It's not quite to the level that an R&D would be, because they really get really under the covers to fix things.

Initial Setup

Since it was a slightly different way of doing things, it was a little complex. It was just the idea of ... this is something new that we have to understand. It wasn't like we're building on a product that already existed, it was right out of the box. It's fairly new, so it was a little more complex that way but R&D made it very easy.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: We're partners.
PeerSpot user
Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
Don IngersonQA Automation Engineer at Precise Circuits, Inc.
ExpertTop 5Consultant

Mike, thank you for the comprehensive answer. I am very familiar with UFT and VBScript. However, I have not had time to install and assess LeanFT. You did an excellent job detailing LeanFT and that it is geared more towards developers.

See all 3 comments
it_user468147 - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Quality Assurance Supervisor at a consumer goods company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Overall it increases the amount of testing that gets done, with more people interacting with automating.

What is most valuable?

Integration with other IDs. It being in the IDs that the developers are using is big. Another big thing is my staff is mostly automators and they are very technical folks. Most of them have development backgrounds, so they are much more comfortable and familiar in IDs like Eclipse or Visual Studio then they are in UFT, which is where we are coming from.

How has it helped my organization?

With my staff, it's retention. Keeping them happy, things like that. That's important. Happy folks are more productive, but also as we spin up agile delivery teams having that integration where the developers are more or less the kings, we can sell that, and say "Hey, use this product." It's already sitting there in Eclipse, sitting there in Visual Studio, so that's pretty big.

To the business, I would say overall it increases the amount of testing that gets done, with more people interacting with automating. Obviously, automation is what we need to do to get more testing done in a shorter amount of time. With more people doing the automation, we are able to get more tests automated, more tests done, so overall we are turning over a more quality product.

What needs improvement?

Number one thing is we are an Oracle shop, so we do Oracle ERP testing, and that add-in from UFT, that technology is not in LeanFT right now. So all of those automations continue to be run in and maintained in UFT. In order to transition those we would need that support, so that is probably the number thing.

Additionally, just more of the UFT functionality that they have now brought in. We're BPT users as well, so they brought in some BPT functionality, but limited. So we can't have a UFT and a LeanFT component existing in the same BPT for example. That is a limitation to us. It's a step in the right direction that we can do some of it now, but we're not there.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Light users - it's only been out for a year, and we haven't been using it all of the year, but if you were to compare day to day usage with UFT, I would say it's probably less so. It seems to be a little more stable than UFT. We consistently see UFT crashes and things like that, and it's kind of just our cost of doing business. We're used to it, so when I go back to that staff satisfaction, that's a key factor there as well.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We're limited in our use right now, probably less than 10 people.

How are customer service and technical support?

I've not had to use HPE tech support for LeanFT.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

There is a lot of Selenium usage and that still occurs. A lot of our agile delivery teams are tools in a toolbox, so, they put up the guardrails on the road and say, "Pick where you want to go, as long as you don't go outside of there, you are good."

How was the initial setup?

It's actually fairly straightforward. For us, it's a simple download, pointed at our concurrent license server and we are good to go. I would characterize it as easy. Like I said, it's simple as long as you already have the ID you want to integrate with.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Being frank, the number one reason is it works off our existing UFT licenses. So we already have those procured and existing, so that's an easy transition for us from a cost perspective.

What other advice do I have?

Make sure your staff has the technical skill set to be able to properly use it. I guess I didn't mention that in limitations, but it is a fairly more technical tool than UFT. The UFT, I would say for a non-developer, non-technical person, UFT is easier to grasp and use than LeanFT. So you just have to make sure that skill set is there, and the background is there on your team.

I like the direction that it's heading, and as I said, I'm a servant of my team and they're very excited about the product and excited to see the direction it is heading as well.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user253326 - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Automation Architect at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
We needed to shift left to new development practices and we ended up using Selenium without native Java. We ended up switching to LeanFT because Selenium couldn’t handle all of our applications.

What is most valuable?

What’s awesome about it is you can use the same language the developers already use.

How has it helped my organization?

LeanFT integrates with our developers work-flow. Our developers can now perform automation using familiar tools, programming language, and IDE. This helps get the whole team involved in test automation.

What needs improvement?

In the next release I'd like to see HP enable LeanFT to work with Sauce Labs. I know HP has their own solution, but it would be better if it were more integrate-able in the spirit of being more open-source, more friendly.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We haven’t been using it that long, but it has been stable for the last month we’ve been using it. It works as advertised thus far.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Very positive: seems like it’s a lightweight solution that's not going to impact what we were already doing as it's just a "wrapper" on top of what we already do.

How are customer service and technical support?

Haven’t had any technical support yet, but the demo team was great.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We had used a lot of different applications and we needed to shift left to new development practices. So we ended up using Selenium without native Java. Unfortunately, before LeanFT, we ran into issues where Selenium couldn’t handle the functionality of all the applications.

How was the initial setup?

It's very straightforward-- you just import a library like you would any other tool and go.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Smartbear.

What other advice do I have?

To me, it has to be using the same tools that the developers already use and that it fits in with their workflow. Testers should be using the same tools as the developers, making the development process easier.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: My blog is sponsored by tech vendors.
PeerSpot user
it_user403125 - PeerSpot reviewer
it_user403125Tech Lead at KPIT Technologies
Vendor

Hi Joe,

Did you get a chance to integrate the leanft tests with jenkins ? Please share your experience.

Thanks,
Swaroop

it_user313797 - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Consultant
It helps move testing closer to the development cycle. However, future releases should support all technologies, which UFT does.

What is most valuable?

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.

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

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.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

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.

How was the initial setup?

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

What other advice do I have?

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.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
PeerSpot user
it_user253329 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Automation Engineer with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
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.

What is most valuable?

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.

How has it helped my organization?

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.

What needs improvement?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

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

How are customer service and technical support?

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

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

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.

How was the initial setup?

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.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user403125 - PeerSpot reviewer
it_user403125Tech Lead at KPIT Technologies
Vendor

Hi Sharon,

Please share your experience of integrating leanft wit Jenkins.

Thanks,
Swaroop

Buyer's Guide
Download our free Micro Focus UFT Developer Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
Updated: November 2022
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Micro Focus UFT Developer Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.