Micro Focus UFT (now part of OpenText) has been a long-standing tool for test automation, but as applications evolve, maintaining UFT tests can become time-consuming and complex. If you're dealing with high maintenance efforts, slow execution times, or limitations in scaling your automation, switching to TestResults can help streamline your testing process.
Migration is handled as part of your onboarding, meaning you don't have to manually rebuild everything. Our team ensures a smooth transition, helping you move over without disrupting your workflow. TestResults offers a more modern approach to automation, reducing test flakiness and minimizing the need for constant script updates, so your team spends less time fixing tests and more time on actual testing.
Unlike UFT, which relies on scripting-heavy test creation, TestResults provides a more stable and adaptable solution. It's designed for high reliability, even in dynamic application environments, ensuring your automation keeps up as your software evolves. Plus, our hands-on guidance means your team quickly gets up to speed with minimal friction.
If you're thinking about making the switch and want to know more about test compatibility, integrations, or migration support, let's talk. Moving from UFT to TestResults is an investment in a more efficient and future-ready test automation setup.
Frequently asked questions
Is UFT still in demand?
While Micro Focus UFT (now OpenText UFT) is still used in enterprise environments, its demand has declined in recent years. Many companies are shifting towards open-source tools AI-driven solutions that offer better scalability and cloud integration. UFT remains relevant in organizations heavily invested in legacy automation frameworks, particularly in industries like banking and insurance.
However, with its high licensing costs and slower adaptability to modern DevOps practices, more teams are migrating to newer, more flexible solutions.
What's a test automation tool better than UFT?
TestResults is a powerful alternative to UFT, offering a more modern, AI-driven approach to test automation. Unlike UFT, which relies on traditional scripting and object repositories, TestResults eliminates flaky tests with its stable automation technology and 99% false positive reduction.
It supports no-code automation, making it accessible to both testers and developers, and integrates seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines. It's also cloud-based, enabling efficient test execution across multiple environments without complex infrastructure setup, something UFT struggles with.
What are the disadvantages of UFT?
One of UFT's biggest drawbacks is its high licensing cost, making it a less viable option for startups and mid-sized companies. It also relies on VBScript, which is outdated and limits the flexibility of test scripting. UFT tests tend to be slower, especially when dealing with dynamic web applications, as its object recognition can be unreliable.
Additionally, its integration with modern DevOps and CI/CD tools is more cumbersome compared to newer, cloud-native solutions that prioritize speed and efficiency.