OpenText UFT One Reviews

The most valuable features are the API testing, the integration with DevOps and accessibility to people without a lot of technical skill.

We can move beyond manual testing without having to go through a whole transformation of an application.

I would like to see more integration with LeanFT and use UFT for continuous integration. It's still a closed product. There's still a reasonably large amount that it can do in order to get better.

Stability is good.

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

When choosing a vendor, find someone who understands your problems. Build a good relationship. Make sure you can influence the product road map. Look at it amongst other tools in the tool chain. Look at LeanFT as well.

The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP). Also the feature for automating both Windows and web applications form a single console is not bad.

My previous organization used UFT extensively for automation more than 500 complex end to end regression tests with considerable savings in time and effort. We were able to achieve that with high degree of reusability.

The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script. Also, the dependency of browser windows to be opened on screen in order for the tool to recognize objects is a big deal breaker since most organizations mandate screen locking when leaving the systems unattended. If we can’t leave a test to run attended, the point of automation in itself becomes a question-mark.

I've been using it for more than 10 years.

There were no issues with the deployment.

We did have a few instances of browser crashing as well as the product crashing. While the product crashing was resolved with 4 GB of memory, the issue with browser crashing still happened with IE 11 and 12 browsers and no resolution was found.

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

I have not interacted directly with HP on the product support.

UFT setup is pretty straightforward.

We did it in-house.

It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly.

No other options were looked as we went straight ahead into UFT.

Go for the cheaper option of Selenium if your requirement is purely browser based testing. If not, go for UFT.

The most valuable feature to me are the high-end automation frameworks -- linear, hybrid, data-driven, keyword-driven, BPT, and functional decomposition.

It works with both desktop and web-based applications.

It also provides us with service testing, API testing, GUI testing and business process testing.

It needs better compatibility with Chrome and Safari, which would lead to this being a better product.

I've used it for six years.

I had no issues with deployment.

I've had no stability issues.

We've scaled without issue.

Customer service is excellent.

Technical support is excellent.

We didn't use a previous solution.

The installation process of this software is very well organized. Here, all the prerequisites/supporting software are part of setup and it automatically configures your system for the best use during the installation. If in one or more parameters are missing the latest updates, it performs those updates automatically.

We did it in-house, and I was a part of this team. You need to make sure to demonstrate to team members the proper tools for installation so they can follow the various concepts and then arrange for proper training to be given to all users for the best use of it. I believe that a well-trained person/team can solve issues with HP UFT by themselves.

It's fast, reliable, and accurate, and should provide ROI.

I am aware of other tools on the market, but I found HP UFT best suited to my needs. We, therefore, adopted it.

If one is looking for a software testing tool for functional parameters with an automation approach, they can go for it without any more thinking and discussion. Where there are a few up and coming open source solutions, they have limitations that HP UFT doesn't have.

For HPE UFT, you can automate your testing for a lot of different platforms. It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications.

For test automation, it helps to speed up the testing and to speed up the software delivery, especially for HPE UFT because you have lots of test automation tools. Also, if I compare HPE UFT with the HPE QTP solution, then HPE UFT is more user-friendly in its use. You still have to program it, but you don't have to program it all of the time; so for a user who isn't used to working with code, he can do other things in HPE UFT.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the HPE StormRunner Functional. If it's possible to do it in a good way from the cloud, and you don't have to install it. I've seen that working for the HR manager and ALM solutions, so it would be very helpful. You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out.

I have used HPE Unified Functional Testing (UFT) for one and a half years, whereas the HPE QuickTest Professional (QTP) for a couple more years before that.

We have to download it, then install it on our own machines and the machines sometimes aren't stable; since we have PDIs, also the UFT isn't stable and I don't know yet where the connection is.

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.

I'm more happy with the SaaS support for the HR manager and ALM than with the off-premises support, that I have to so through for UFT. This is because, often, when I have an issue with UFT, I get slow responses and most of the times, it is in regards to the things that I have already Googled and tried to figure out myself. So, it doesn't always help me.

HPE UFT is quite complex to set up.

I, myself mostly, have experience with the HPE tooling and I haven't been in the position where I could decide what tooling to choose. I'm hired because I have this knowledge but I would say usability of the tools, (i.e., how you can use it) is the most important criteria while selecting a vendor

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.

It's great to be able to go from one company to another and each one uses UFT similarly. It's also extremely versatile, in that you can pretty much use it with any type of application.

It allows us to automate hundreds of test cases that would normally have to be manually tested. The tests are also extremely reliable so it saves a lot of time on analysis. That's really the first and foremost benefit for us. We were doing quarterly releases as well as maintenance releases, which is quite a lot. So this solution has saved us a lot of effort and expense.

The knowledge base for getting started isn't terribly deep, so it requires you to have a bit of programming ability to pick it up and use it.

It's deployed without any issues for us.

It's fairly stable, but the problem is that it's not always updated and current. When something new comes up, it takes HP a long time to support it.

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.

A lot of people are moving away from the big intertools. So people look at products all the time, and every time the budget comes up or every time they tell me to cut expenses or every time they get frustrated with it, a lot of the small-time tools and open-source tools get attention. So I've been evaluating those.

If you're an HP shop, you're probably going to go out and buy it. But I don't think new customers will sign on to replace, for example, Selenium. There are plenty of open-source options, and people who know how to implement UFT already know how to implement open-source codes. So I think that people who are using open source will stick with open source, and people who have significant investment inHP will stick with HP.

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.