OpenText UFT One Reviews

OpenText UFT One reduced test creation time for mobile by 60 percent, automated half of testing, leading to significant time savings, and decreased maintenance costs by 60 percent. Test execution included multiple platforms without issues. AI capabilities simplified changes to a few minutes, enhancing efficiency. ROI achieved within six to nine iterations, with a 20% reduction in total efforts and a notable return on investment observed.

OpenText UFT One is perceived as quite costly, with a complex licensing model and no free trials. Users often find the annual subscription fees high and sometimes seek cheaper licenses through SAP. While the price can reach up to $5,000 per year, companies use concurrent, seat, and run-time licenses to manage costs. Some users believe it offers good value for extensive use, but others feel it should be more affordable and user-friendly. Discounts are available.

• "The tool's price is high."
• "OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
• "We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

OpenText UFT One is utilized for a wide range of testing activities including end-to-end, functional, API, and regression testing. It supports web, desktop, and hybrid applications, enabling automation of various test scenarios. Organizations leverage it for automating web services, mobile testing, and data validation. It is deployed on-premises and helps in creating test data, replacing manual tasks, and handling complex test cases efficiently. Users appreciate its versatility and comprehensive testing capabilities.

Customers indicate mixed experiences with OpenText UFT One's customer service. Some users find it prompt and helpful, while others mention delays and insufficient technical expertise. Many users prefer escalating issues through partners or relying on internal teams for initial support. Suggestions include faster resolution times, higher-tier assistance, and more informative articles. Although some customers give high ratings, others express disappointment due to unresolved issues and lack of responsiveness.

Many found OpenText UFT One's initial setup straightforward, quick, and not complex. Some needed a specialized team or third-party providers. Upgrades often required uninstallation and reinstallation. A few encountered installation challenges with specific add-ins. Deployment time varied from a few minutes to several hours, depending on the system's performance. Some appreciated easy-to-use config files, while others suggested better documentation and support. Technical knowledge was beneficial, and maintenance was usually manageable with minimal personnel.

OpenText UFT One scales well, supporting teams from small to large, integrating with third-party tools like Jenkins and ALM Octane. Users find it effective for both automation and testing, capable of handling multiple projects and users efficiently. Floating licenses facilitate scaling, with up to 150 users reported. Some challenges exist with licensing and installation on multiple machines, but it generally extends coverage and supports enterprise-level scalability.

OpenText UFT One is generally stable and reliable, with many users experiencing minimal issues such as occasional slowness and rare crashes. Some reported no bugs or glitches. Stability ratings range from 5 to 10 out of 10. The AI features may be less stable, but traditional functionality is strong. Upgrading system memory has resolved some stability issues. Stability is contingent on server and license setups, and compatibility with systems like SAP varies.