OpenText UFT One Reviews

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.

• Object recognition
• Bulk-object capture: automatically builds data tables in order
• VBScript & C# & Java
• Industry- and market-leading functional test tool

It has reduced time-to-market regression from 160+ hours to 12 hours.

I’d like to see them improve the number of objects recognized without customization, similar to TestComplete by SmartBear. Simply put: It would save test development time, which would reduce time-to-market.

I have used it for eight years.

I did not encounter any deployment issues.

I did not encounter any stability issues.

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

I rate customer service 9/10.

I rate technical support 9/10.

We previously used WinRunner and switched due to ease of implementation.

Setup was easy and straightforward.

An in-house team implemented it.

Have a look at the HP UFT pricing model; it’s changed.

We also evaluated Smart Bear’s TestComplete.

It is a great alternative, and has outstanding object recognition & functionality.

License cost, ease of implementation, expandability, extensibility, reusability, availability of useful code and knowledge are some of the reasons to consider switching.

• Object repository
• Supported keywords
• API testing

UFT is easy to use so the QA team is not required to have much programming skills. VBScript language is also an advantage that it has.

I think that UFT should support more robust keywords to work with a low number of applications under test.

I've been using it for two years.

It often crashes.

6/10 - I posted questions on the HP forum and mostly received no feedback. I also saw that people post questions and help each other.

I used Mercury QuickTest Pro 8.2 for three years. I still use IBM Rational Robot, TestComplete, and some frameworks based on Selenium WebDriver.

Everything is readable and easy to understand.

We did it in-house.

Open-source automated testing engines are also good.

The most valuable features to me are--

• Business process components (can be dropped into test flow)
• Keyword-driven test cases (one of several automated testing frameworks)

It's allowed business analysts to work with automation scripts without requiring them to have programming knowledge.

I'd like to see a scanning feature that shows the changes that happened in an application and the auto updates them. This would help reduce the time in maintaining scripts.

I've used it for six years.

I did not encounter any issues with deployment.

Yes, there were stability issues sometimes.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

Customer service is excellent.

Technical support is good.

We didn't use any previous solutions.

Initial setup was straightforward.

We used an in-house team for implementation.

It's expensive, but it's worth the money.

We didn't evaluate any other options.

HP UFT is a popular tool used by many organizations, hence there are many forums out there to help us in case we face any challenges.

The IDE is very user friendly.

There's less manual testing time, so we are able to quickly resolve any IT issues.

In future versions, I would like to see the ability to turn off the auto-complete, or at least have this working properly as it doesn’t seem to be doing so now. Also, object identification isn’t always 100% reliable, and the development environment kind of gets in the way. It seems as if it’s inflated and gets in the way of just writing code.

It’s in the middle and not always 100% reliable.

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

We use a third-party vendor, and they are very helpful. Any help we’ve ever needed is covered.

It was already in place when I joined and has always been this solution.

I don’t know, but I think it was fairly straightforward.

Support and reliability are my most important criteria when selecting a solution. Also, I would evaluate its compatibility, and HP seems to be comfortable in not having too much competition in this realm.

With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources. It has allowed us to focus on newly added features.

• Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users.
• Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test.

Initially, it was supporting only Internet Explorer. This was not an issue, as the corporate choice, was to use that browser. In the meantime, Firefox and Google Chrome became popular and were introduced within the company, hence scripting became more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support those additional browsers.

This was long time ago, with version 8.2. It was automation of a pack of regression set with QTP. It was a success because my customer split regression testing and functional testing. Therefore, I could focus on the part which was identical across versions, then maintain the scripts after new features were introduced over releases.

We primarily use the solution for any test completion intended for the system.

I don't really see a way it has improved our organization. I don't like this tool and I don't think that it's a successful example for automation. It's because of the tool's limitations that make the automation of a project difficult to execute successfully.

The solution is the company's product of choice. We disagree a bit in that regard.

The initial setup is relatively easy.

The solution makes test automation really difficult to maintain. The design of the test framework isn't ideal. They should work to improve it.

The concept is really old. It needs to be integrated with EMM, due to the fact that, obviously, EMM is the one to manage your test. It's almost difficult to manage test automation as a project. It's good for video testing, however, it's not good for a project.

The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded.

I've been using the solution for three years.

The solution is stable. However, that said, it's also slow.

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.

I didn't really ask for technical support in the past. We didn't really use much of the features, therefore we didn't have technical issues with that tool. I can't speak to their general responsiveness having never spoken with them directly.

I have never used a different solution. I merely use this solution as it is my company's preferred product.

The initial setup is not complex. It's quite straightforward.

We're just customers. We don't have any business relationship with Micro Focus.

Personally, the solution doesn't meet my expectations. The design is really old. It's possible we'll be talking about changing soon. I'm not sure if it will happen, however, I would prefer to try something new.

A person with no programming background might really like this solution. I, however, do not. On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate it at a five. I have a technical background and I don't really like using this tool. It's better for someone with less programming experience.