OpenText UFT One Reviews

I used almost all the features. To me, the the most valuable features were the OR and code compiler (VB script) to call the framework.

I worked for Weight Watchers on a diabetes product which had three main modules -- signup, questionnaire, and calendar.

The manual resource was created for eight users for full processing, but after I generated the script, I did the full process for the same test cases for up to 100 users.

• Spy elements
• OR

I used it from February to December 2014.

No issues encountered.

When I ran the script for two or three times sequentially, the tool hung and wouldn’t respond.

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

8/10 - because they have good technical knowledge and the response is really fast.

I connected with technical support only a few times, so it is not fair for me to rate them. But for the few times I did, it is 8/10.

I did, and I switched because the newer tools have many features and many options such as browser support, responsive design, and is faster. However, there are free and open source tools.

It was straightforward.

It was done through a vendor team who were mid-level in experience.

The license is expensive.

I came to the company and they were using the tool, but there were other options for them choose to choose from such as Selenium and Node.js.

You need to improve the support browsers and responsive design, and try to use newer and better languages (JS).

Also, check the stability of your product(s) when you run a lot of scripts.

They should reduce the price.

1. UFT12 supports IE11, Firefox until v24 and Chrome browser until v30, operating systems and environments
2. When the test contains any unmapped repository parameter, the Errors pane displays the test name and path in the Item column
3. UFT12 fully supports the .xlsx format of Excel files for importing data to the Data Table or when specifying an Excel file for use with ALM configurations
4. The InsightObject.Click method brings the Insight object’s parent test object into focus before performing the click. In some cases, this change of focus may hide your Insight object in the application, making it impossible for UFT to find and click it. In those cases, you can use the new InsightObject.ClickSpecial method, which does not bring the parent test object into focus before clicking
5. When using Insight to recognize objects, UFT searches for objects on your screen that match a stored test object image. When modifying a test object’s image, you can now specify areas within the image that UFT ignores when searching for a match. This is useful if parts of an object do not always look the same. For example, if different icons are used on different operating systems to run a certain application
6. Standard VBScript provides the CreateObject function, which enables creating 32-bit COM object references. UFT has added theCreateObject64 statement, enabling you to create 64-bit COM object references
7. The popular Save with Resources feature from QuickTest is now also available for GUI Tests in UFT. It comes in handy if you need to open or run a test when you do not have access to a network drive or ALM. For example, you may need to create a portable copy of a test for use when traveling to other sites. Using the File > Save (Other) > Save with Resources command, you can save everything you need to a local drive or to another storage device. When you use this option, UFT creates a copy of the test, its resource, and any external actions called by your test, and adjust the references from your test to the resources and external actions so that you can use them locally
8. The UFT Web Add-in now supports the following additional objects for HTML5 object recognition:
   
   • WebAudio. Supports recognition of HTML audio objects
   • WebVideo. Supports recognition of HTML5 video objects
   • WebNumber. Supports recognition of HTML5 number objects. These objects may look like numeric edit boxes or up-down spin controls, depending on the browser
   • WebRange. Supports recognition of HTML5 range objects
9. In previous versions of UFT, if you wanted to test Flex applications, you needed to first compile them specifically for testing. UFT12 includes the UFT Flex Runtime Loader, which you can use to open most of your Flex applications for testing, without having to pre-compile the application. You can use the new Flex tab in the Record and Run Settings dialog box to instruct UFT to open Flex applications at the beginning of a record or run session. In this tab, you specify whether you have prepared the application in advance for testing, or whether UFT should open the application using the Runtime Loader. You can also configure the new Flex Record and Run settings using an automation script
10. You can define a shortcut key or key combination that stops the current recording session (for GUI tests only) or run operation, even if UFT is not in focus or is in hidden mode. In the Run Sessionspane in the Options dialog box (Tools > Options > General pane > Run Sessions node, click in the Stop command shortcut key field and then press the required key or key combination on the keyboard. The default key combination is CTRL+ALT+F5.
11. The Run Results Deletion tool is now incorporated into the Run Results Viewer. This enables you to automatically delete test results from tests and business process tests stored on ALM without needing to independently connect the Run Results Deletion tool to ALM.
12. Testing Extensibility now supports Visual Studio 2010 and Visual Studio 2012. When you run a test that uses a virtualized service, you can now view the service’s details in the run results:
    • The name of the service and location of the deployed service
    • Deployment status of the service
    • The performance and data models used in this test run-time agent mode
    • The data simulation and performance simulation accuracy for the virtualized service in this test run.
13. A new RunDebug method is available in the Automation Object Model. This method instructs UFT to stop at breakpoints when running a test using automation, whether from ALM or in an automation run.
14. Using UFT, you can now run GUI tests as well as API tests that use a virtualized service. This enables you to run tests of your application using a service that would otherwise be inaccessible for test runs.
15. UFT provides Business Process Testing from within UFT, using the native UFT user interface. This enables users to create, maintain, debug, and run BPT tests together with GUI and API tests, providing a single, one-stop-shop product for seamless functional testing.
    • Business process tests and flows are comprised of business components, which can be used to test specific parts of your application modularity. Business components include keyword GUI components, scripted GUI components, and API components
    • If you are familiar with using BPT in ALM, you can use BPT in UFT as follows:
      • Add components and flows to your tests and flows by dragging them from the Toolbox pane to the test or flow opened in the document pane
      • Set parameter promotion options in the BPT Testing tab of the Options dialog box
      • Link and promote parameters in the Component Parameters tab of the Properties pane. Use the other Properties pane tabs to view and modify various test, flow, component, or group details, such as descriptions, fields, and comments
      • Manage component iterations in the Data pane

1. Improved our ability to work in different environments and test in different browsers
2. Ability to calculate the test run and results using ALM
3. Easy to maintain the requirements and completion of its development and testing process
4. Improved the level of coding to a higher level

With my experience, I couldn’t find any need for improvement.

I was using the QTP tool for five years and UFT for three months.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

I didn’t get a chance to work with customer service.

I didn’t get a chance to work with technical support.

No previous solution was used.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Implementation was done through a vendor team, and their level of expertise is 9/10.

This tool is good for programming experts.

• The most valuable thing in my opinion is the ease of moving objects for storage from AUT into the object repository and handling them. 
• Also, built-in features for database connectivity and SQL queries for data retrieval are a time saver. This eliminates the need for descriptive programming and writing huge chunks of code for relatively simple tasks. 
• Step delay and object sync options are also a very useful feature.

• It saves time and manpower. Test development and maintenance are faster and easier thanks to UFT. 
• Also, one tool covers several projects developed in different technologies while the approach to test design can remain the same. A relatively small team of trained professionals can cover a wide range of tests. 
• Due to UFT’s popup messages for errors and test execution results viewer, it is very simple to analyze the test results and figure out what went wrong, reducing the time needed for defect detection and test updates.

• When it comes to improvements, definitely stability and system requirements are something that could be worked on. In cases of longer tests (in forms of so-called Mega Scripts), there can be a seriously huge usage of virtual memory by UFT that can lead to SystemOutOfMemory exceptions which are showstoppers and a huge annoyance. 
• Object recognition can be tricky sometimes. For example, UFT doesn’t recognize the object during test execution, but when you pause the run and click “highlight in app” button in object repository it recognizes the object and you can continue with the run. You still get the “failed” status in run results although it was a UFT error.

We use UFT only for our own test automation needs.

We haven't had any issues with deployment.

See the stability issues we had above.

We've scaled it for our needs.

My advice would be to find at least one experienced automation developer who previously worked with UFT to provide practical know-how to others when implementing it for the first time. 

Learning the basics is easy and intuitive when you receive a proper training. But using UFT the wrong way can turn out to be cost ineffective. UFT is an expensive tool that can save you a lot of time and effort and provide great value for money if used correctly, but also turn out as ineffective related to value-for-money if used the wrong way. 

YouTube tutorials are not the best way of training people for using this tool, the best way is finding people who already have experience to work with it or provide proper training for employees who have never worked with it.

UFT is easy to use for functional testing, so for me it’s very important that it can travel across a large range of technologies. We can use the same tool for all the different kinds of automation that we do.

We’re already using LoadRunner and ALM. UFT gets along well with these other solutions, blending together with the ALM suite.

UFT is rather slow in execution, and that’s something that needs to improve. It runs strips rather slowly as other tools handle the same modular strips much faster.

It's not always very stable, but that depends on how you implement it in your organization. We put it on a separate server host in Singapore managed by our guys in Bangalore, so they make sure that they’re always available first.

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.

Technical support is quite good, though sometimes it depends on who you’re dealing with. Sometimes you get bad luck and get a guy who doesn't know much about it, is new, or is in training, but most of the time it’s all right.

It was rather easy and you really can do it yourself.

Ask a good HP expert how you need to do it and they'll tell you how to do it.

The core application that we're using in our company is a bit special and resistant to automation. To properly to automate, it needs a plug-in from the software's vendor. The only technology for automation that is supported is UFT, so we're sort of locked into UFT for our core application.

UFT is the only technology that enabled us to actually automate our core application.

It's fine, but we've had to do workarounds for some things.

We've had no issues with deployment.

For us, we started with version 9 of UFT when it was called QTP, QuickTest Pro. For us it worked, though, like the average software, there are issues, but we always had a good ability to provide work arounds. Regardless, it's been pretty stable.

We've had no issues with scalability.

We haven't needed much technical support as we can sort it out ourselves.

Some parts of it were pretty easy to set up. Most of the issues we had were related to organizational stuff, such as managing licenses, etc.

Make sure you take a good look at your approach, such as whether it's keyword driven automation, etc. Make sure you organize things that you're headed in the right direction because once you implement in a certain way, changing direction may be pretty hard. Determine also how you deal with object repositories, how you deal with sharing information, and how important the reusability of scripts is in your project.

Well, you got just automation, basically, that's what you wanted. You get rid of manual testing, which is a huge improvement.

Well, I'm not an expert but from a deep technical perspective, it has been odd-neat, except for the small failures we had due to particular environments. I haven't got a good idea though, I'm not deep into it.

We have been using the product since 2012. We use both ALM and UFT together, as a team.

UFT is stable. Not a problem.

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.

The technical support is pretty good. It probably depends on the support contract type you have. Our contract works pretty well as we have dedicated support engineers for our product.

They are knowledgeable and responsive. Sometimes you need a little bit more, but then HP help us to find it as they're knowledgeable troubleshooters. So we never had a problem to get issues fixed when we found that particular person. It was very effective I guess.

When considering vendors we look for stability, support and reliability. And that's probably it. So we probably are not going for small vendors.