OpenText UFT Digital Lab Reviews

• Management of a pool of devices that can be made available globally for automated, manual or performance tests, via a slick interface.  
• Strong integration with HPE tools, ALM, UFT, Sprinter and LeanFT, and the integration with non HPE tools.  
• Strategic solution that pulls in real world analytics from AppPulse Mobile to aid in definition of strategy and integrates with Network Virtualisation to see how the device will run under real network conditions.  
• Primary usage is on real devices but also supports emulators.  
• The 2.0 release extends capability to AWS device farm.

It is enabling a global strategy to be put in place.  Our largest implementation is with a global team.  The solution provides a controlled device farm with the right devices (selected based on analytics), that are readily available (can be reserved), have the right app and can be used for manual or automated tests.  

Manual testing (with Sprinter) is accelerated with steps being captured automatically with exploratory testing, storyboards being captured and device logs etc. automatically being attached to defects (that can be sync'ed back to non-HPE tools or raised directly in non-HPE tools).  Net effect, developers get the right info to address issues quickly and efficiently.

Automation allows fast and efficient testing across a range of devices, this would not be feasible manually.  The skills and good practice used for non-Mobile directly apply. Shared Object Repositories and Application Models make a big difference for maintainability - object recognition has always been a HPE strength.

There has been a notable shift in emphasis, from the on device get it to work, to strategy and how the full benefit of the solution, with analytics and NV is used.  

Mobile Center development is moving at pace.  With versions prior to 2.0 I found that configuration was trickier than it should be, particularly with aspects such as NV.  With 2.0, the NV installation is straightforward and integrations are performed prominently via the UI.  I had one issue on installation of the stack for MC 2.0 (MC, UFT, LeanFT), I found a workaround and found that I also had responsive support.

It provides an integrated view of HPE solutions and gives insight to the services and apps you have developed; A powerful tool enabling multi-platform and multi-site testing, application performance monitoring, and user experience assessment of mobile apps.

The main benefit is that you can get a very quick idea regarding the performance of your application. It also helps you discover hidden pain points that you would not have found without using this tool. The main pain points are the performance of your apps and the user experience. When you build something in the lab or on some devices, you cannot predict what the actual user experience will be. Additionally, you cannot imagine what problems you may face when this app starts being used.

I'd like to see an extension to the ability to monitor and to operate in an ecosystem of applications; not only our applications, but also the applications of our partners. Our partners expect from us, as a major telecom operator, to create an environment in order to give the ability to integrate their apps with our public APIs. If our partners can do that, we build a very strong relationship among all these parties. But, we have to support and protect our brand and the outstanding quality of our services. We have to consider how all these ecosystems and integrated apps work to provide the services they promised to.

I don't have a very clear idea about stability, because we haven't used it yet. We have tested internally, and we are planning to implement Mobile Center soon.

I believe scalability is good. Considering that this is developed based on the best practices of HPE development, I believe that it will be scalable. It must certainly be scalable in order to be used by an organization like us.

Our impression of HPE support services is quite good. However, in some cases we discovered some issues for HPE support regarding the latest enhancements; the delivery time for these enhancements is not as fast as we would like.

We were not using any similar products previously.

I recommend Mobile Center because I believe that it is a solution that covers a gap in this area. I believe that HPE has a vision to invest in this area and invest in this service and this tool. I strongly believe that HPE is one of the main players in this area.

The product is easy to use.

OpenText UFT Digital Lab’s price could be better. They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model.

We have been using OpenText UFT Digital Lab for a few weeks.

It is a stable platform. I rate its stability a nine out of ten.

We have five OpenText UFT Digital Lab users. I rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

The technical support team is helpful.

Positive

We have deployed the product on the cloud.

The product could be more affordable. I rate its pricing a three or four out of ten.

I recommend OpenText UFT Digital Lab to others and rate it an eight out of ten.

The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time. 

We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it. 

I have been working with the product for more than two years. 

I rate the product's stability a six out of ten since we have internet issues. 

I rate OpenText UFT Digital Lab's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has 25-30 users for it. 

The solution's customer support is excellent. 

Positive

OpenText UFT Digital Lab's setup is just plug-and-play. I rate it a seven out of ten. The tool's installation takes a month to complete. You need three to five resources to handle the deployment. 

OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

This is a solution that's easy to use. It also gives us the possibility to use real devices connected either on the Mobile Center server or on our own computers. And it works with both iOS and Android devices.

We now have the ability to test our app on real devices instead of just on virtual devices.

There are couple of improvements I'd suggest. First, it would be helpful to have a Windows Server version instead of just Linux. Second, I think it would be a good idea to have an interface to manage the server, specifically to run Android Debug Bridge (ADB) commands.

I've used Mobile Center for 4 months.

Deployment was an issue. Each time we set it up and deployed, it failed and we had to relaunch it again.

Also, we weren't able to set up the Windows components.

Other than the deployment issue, once it was running we didn't have any issues with stability.

Scalability is not a relevant issue with this solution.

I never used customer service.

I never used technical support.

We had not prior solution to this.

The initial setup was complex because Mobile Center is only supported on Linux. There was also the issue with deployment failure once we did set it up.

We're able to test different mobile apps at the same time with the defects gadget.

We've not set it up properly yet, so my experience is limited, but the ideas and possibilities that this tool has are incredibly useful.

Because of connection errors, we've haven't yet been able to set it up properly at my company.

I've used it for one month.

We have a specific department that deals with customer service.

We have a specific department that deals with technical support.

The key feature is the ease of use. We want to make sure that when our customers get the product, it's not going to be on the shelf for six months. They want to be able to readily use each solution productively. Whether that includes the product itself in our services, or just the product itself. We want to make sure that they're going to be using it.

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.

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.

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.

We work on an almost daily basis with the R&D team and they've been extremely helpful in solving issues that we have with customers - issues that we've had with the product itself such as How do I do this, How do I do that, and so forth.

We've been involved with Mobile Center since its inception. With some of the other products, it was more later down the road, but with Mobile Center it's been right from the inception.

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.

We are a system integrator and this is one of the solutions that we provide for our customers.

The deployment model varies depending on the customer because some use this solution on-premises, and others use the cloud version.

The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization.

The integration with Oracle projects is very simple and easy to use.

I would like to see more integration with automation tools.

The integration and configuration should be made easier with tools on the same platform.

We have five people who are using this solution.

We are at an early stage in terms of using this solution. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.