There are less than 10 people who are doing the scripting for various things. Then, there are probably another 10 to 15 who do execution. So, they don't actually open UFT One, but they leverage it from a perspective of: I need to run this test, go and give me the results. We even have some business units who use it. 

In health care, sometimes it is a lot of work to verify a new plan. For example, there is a new company, and they want a new plan with some specific features. The way you really test out a plan is you file a bunch of claims against that plan in the test region and make sure that they pay out properly, but you might need to test 150 claims. Filling out a claim is dreadful. I wouldn't want to have to fill out one, let alone 150. So, they fill out a simple spreadsheet, giving it a kind of virtual handoff to UFT One, and UFT One does all the work. It then delivers the results. We do this for some business units directly and some indirectly, where there is a QA person involved in the middle. There are more than 15 people who do that, and that's really where the floating licenses help us out to open it up more. 

Who knows where it will go this year? I don't really know what projects there are, but one of the biggest things I like about any automation product is to add efficiencies, however we can.

Currently, there are three of us on this project. However, I believe that many users are using multiple applications, such as Oracle, SAP, and Guidewire, as well as some specific applications. Micro Focus UFT One is being used in comparison to Tricentis Tosca, due to the cost of licensing Tricentis Tosca. Many people in my organization are using Micro Focus UFT One.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

In terms of scalability, on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the best, I would rate it a five, because we couldn't use Micro Focus across the technology. It was good within SAP, but scalability comes with its own set of complications. I don't think it is as adaptable as it could be compared to my other tools, which have a good number of reusable components.

I can quote license numbers because my customer has enough licenses, but what we consume is much lower because we only use it for one part of the enterprise because Micro Focus is not worth the time. I couldn't use it as a single entry tool strategy for my team's automation tools.

I would say we have enough licenses. We have 100 licenses dealing with the customer. However, I am consuming hundreds of licenses from the automation.

Our company currently has around 90 testers on a program, but the numbers may vary and depend on whether a normal project ramps up or down. For the migration process, my company has around 400 testers since it is a process where there will be a ramp-up till November, after which there will be a need for only 90 to 100 users when the ramping-down process starts.

It is not a scalable solution. I rate the tool's scalability a five out of ten.

My customers own big companies and they have money to buy the tool, so they buy legacy system that work for ten to twenty years. If they want to automate, they need to use the tools that are compatible. Considering the old and big organizations in Thailand, I think there are around ten to twenty customers that use the tool.

We have 10 people in my company using this solution.

The solution is scalable.

Scalabiliy is entirely up to the framework design. While Record and Playback are available for new users, it will result in fragile high maintenance and unscalable test suites. That's true of most automation tools, so a hybrid framework design approach is always highly recommended. Fortunately, UFT is extremely flexible in design.

Advanced developers can go so far as to design a framework which translates to Plain English ("Click Ok Button") into script code (WebButton("InnerText:=Ok").click). This leads to function designs similar to Gherkin & Cucumber, bypassing the object repository entirely.

With BPT (Business Process Testing), non-technical users can easily build test cases inside of ALM (Application Lifecycle Management) from scripted components designed by automation engineers. Simply copy an existing test and add additional components that meet your test requirement.

Scaling to push multiple tests executions with different data sets is also easy to implement particularly with the new Data Generation Tool described above.

Lastly, scaling object class methods to add new functionality or modify the process of execution is achievable with just a few lines of code. The tool even provides a Function Definition Generator Wizard to help build the code the first time.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. Three people in my organization use the solution.

The scalability is pretty good. We've used it over the last ten years. We can scale from one single ERP to multiple ERPs. I'd rate the scalability nine out of ten. 

The licensing is scalable. That said, the product itself is the product and we really build large test sets with hundreds and thousands of test scripts. So we didn't have any problem scaling the test sets, so to speak. Just not the product itself. I don't know how to scale the product itself.

It is very scalable. The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers, and more licenses can be purchased for larger deployments.

I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten.

The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good.

I think OpenText UFT One scales very well, but because it's not widely used... You can use one license per seat or per user who's automating it. So it doesn't need to scale, it works well enough with one single license per user. It's not meant for more than two users using the same license anyway.

Mostly developers use this product. They have a development background in Visual Basic and the use of the tool. With my current client, it's the business analysts that are doing the automation using this tool and it's not being used effectively. You have to have some form of development background, especially in Visual Basic.

UFT One is easier to scale because you can bring in more people without a strong coding background. As long as you have a good plan, it's fairly simple to take an entire team of manual testers and have them create test scripts. It's much better than getting a whole group of engineers to set up and build the test cases.

UFT One itself appeared to be fairly scalable, as it generally runs one test at a time. However, it can be integrated into LoadRunner for combined testing, although I haven't delved deeply into that aspect.

It is a scalable solution. I rate its scalability as a ten.

Micro Focus UFT One is a scalable product.

We have approximately 100 end users in our company who use this solution.

I am reducing my usage slowly. I am reducing 30 to 40% of the licenses.

The solution is scalable. 

It is highly scalable. 

There are around 150 users of UFT One with 8,000 test scenarios running four times a month. We are also running around 500 scripts in UFT One.

The scalability is good. They add a lot of features with every new release. I just learned about the two things that are being added now that are valuable for my organization.

The solution is very scalable for a UFT. We have more than ten people using this solution.

We use the product as often as we can. Between 50 to 100 people are using the solution. We are constantly looking for additional customers and projects so we have ongoing plans to increase usage.

The overall scalability is very good and utilizing the licensing server allows us to scale the solution as we need. One area which can be improved involves the running of instances on a single machine.

We have not really had to scale it much. It is something that we're looking at, which is why I spoke to some representatives at a recent conference. One thing that's unclear to me at the moment is the benefits, or otherwise, of integrating the UFT product with the architecture that we're going towards; more open source and continuous development, continuous integration type tools. I know HPE does integrate, but I'm not sure how and where it integrates and what the benefits are.

As with any code base, well-designed and implemented automation code will make for easy maintenance, and a stable code base that will scale very well as the complexity of the suite grows. Nothing will save you from poor coding practices.

We have three solution users in our organization.

It is easily scalable. It supports increases in automation as well as integrates with third-party tools, like ALM Octane and Jenkins.

UFT One is easy to scale, and there's no problem. Right now, we have fewer projects, so we're using it less. 

The scalability is good.

The solution is scalable. 

There's no block of scalability as it's a client application. It's managed centrally from a license-server perspective. Scalability can be as many installs as you want. From our perspective, the actual number of people that can use it concurrently is controlled by the license server, so there's no issues of scalability on that side.

It's scalable on the enterprise level. I have already scaled a project with UFT One at enterprise level. I'm using it because it is very scalable compared to open-source tools and many other tools on the market.

We've got global licenses, so we use it on a world-wide scale, and so far it's been great. We even use it on virtualized servers, so it can scale just fine.

Scalability, for our needs, has worked spectacularly well. There were some issues that we were facing with some of the patches. They were taken under consideration by OpenText and we got proper updates from the team.

When we want to increase the number of people in a team, because our licenses are limited, we sometimes face an issue, but that is not their problem because we have chosen limited licenses. We sometimes find it difficult to get people onboarded when we have a lot of work and that sometimes hinders the work. With an open source tool, you don't have any such problem. If you have a lot of work and you want to onboard more people you get it done.

Because our project was already in UFT, we are trying to utilize UFT One to have proper capabilities in AI and for automation from screenshots. But it is good to see a lot of changes and we are trying to utilize them in our upcoming releases and projects.

The scalability is okay.

It's very scalable, a very robust kind of solution and we recommend it to anyone who's looking for a testing automation kind of tool.

UFT or Lean FT tests can only execute only one test on one machine. When the number of automation tests are very high, say 5000 to 10000, even with eight to 10 licenses, UFT can take over 24 hours for execution. This is unacceptable in agile projects. The regression test execution time is expected to be less than one hour for any agile project.

It's scalability was very flexible.

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

This product is scalable in some regards and not others. 

As for extending the execution of tests to other machines, you have to install UFT on every machine and get it started, which may not be very scalable. However, it is scalable in terms of generally extending coverage to other applications. Essentially, once you start automating an application, you can continue to build on that as new requirements or scenarios come in.

Right now, we're using it more for some of my smaller tasks, but eventually I'd like to grow it, at least in our QA department, towards more applications.

No issues with scalability.

UFT is pretty much scalable in terms of Windows desktop and mobile platforms; but when it comes to Mac, it only supports Safari. I want it to support Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Mac. If UFT can't provide that, then at least LeanFT should provide that support. I believe it's in the roadmap but it will take a lot of time.

Scalability isn't really applicable to us because we have 10 virtual machines and UFT is installed in all of them. Jenkins is what takes care of the scalability, based on the workload. It allocates the jobs to any number of servers that are available.

I don't know how many people are using UFT One in our company, but on our team we have 15 people working with it. They are testers and automation engineers.

Plans to increase usage depend on the new initiatives that are coming up. For about a year and a half we have been using UFT on 15 virtual machines, to its full potential. There are plans to increase its usage, because there are new projects coming up and we intend to deploy UFT on them.

We have 12 licenses at the moment. Cost is one factor that pushes us to use another tool as well.

We had no issues with scalability.

Scalability is not an issue as long as an organization can afford the licenses.

The scalability is good, although it’s not without its problems.

There were no issues with the scalability.

It's been able to scale to our needs.

We've scaled without issue.

Scalability is good. I never have seen an issue with the scalability.

Scalability depends on the user. UFT is basically a sandbox and will be as flexible as you make it. So scalability can be high, but there are things that work against it. You're bound by the licensing structure, so in order to get bigger benefits, you have to have multiple copies. If you want to fun multiple simultaneous tests, you have to have the licensing to do that, and that costs a ton of money.

Scalability is a little difficult because you need to have the machines and then, have to install it. It is less scalable than the other products. For example, the HR manager just takes another workspace in the cloud and then, you work.

We've had no scalability issues.

There were issues with browsers when supporting more elements such as CSS and HTML.

No issues encountered.

We've scaled it for our needs.

Scalability is not that important for UFT since it’s not used by so many people at the same time. For us, there's only a few guys performing performance tests so scalability is not a big issue.

We've had no issues with scalability.

From my experience, UFT is scalable. Our very first project was quite a demanding project. We had a form of testing hosts of around 40 to 60 and we never had to worry about performance or scalability.

I did not encounter any scalability issues when it was properly integrated with remote execution controls.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

We've had the same amount of licenses for years now, so we're not exposed to scaling.

The scalability is pretty good. If an organization needs to expand, it should have no trouble doing so.

Our particular projects have more than 50 people on them. Mostly they are from the IT automation team.

UFT is pretty late to support latest versions of IE. Also I have seen a marked decrease in execution speed while the scripts grow.

There were no issues with the scalability.

We've scaled just fine, and there's no issues here.