OpenText UFT One Reviews

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.

For us, object recording is the most valuable and most used feature.

We've used it just during a Proof of Concept period.

We noticed during our PoC that it needs parallel execution, not execution via ALM.

I used 11.5 two years ago, and I just updated to 12.51 one month ago, but I have not really used it yet.

There were no issues with the deployment.

There were no issues with the stability.

There were no issues with the scalability.

We previously used Selenium. Our clients choose their IDEs and I integrate for them.

It's hard to install the license seat because the web-based GUI is not user friendly.

I implement it with in-house teams.

The add-on I am using has limited resource on-line that makes it a challenge to use. Compared to Selenium, I prefer Selenium. However, I may want to see HPMC before I can make better suggestions.

The Object Spy in UFT is very valuable for spying on controls in our mobile application and viewing their properties and values.

I would like a version that works quicker. Also, a lot of people can't afford it because it's expensive.

I've been using it for two years. Each project is different, and it is sometimes two months or six months at once.

I haven't encountered any issues with deployment.

It's stable, and there's no issues with instability.

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

Technical support was very helpful and good.

I used different tools and a different solution, e.g. Selenium in a previous company. I didn’t choose this product as it was in place when I joined.

It was already in place when I got here, so I don't know if the initial setup was straightforward or complex.

I found all the features to be valuable. I can't pinpoint just one. It's just a very useful UI automation testing solution.

It allowed us to provide automation test coverage in various areas of an online web application, including web services..

• More details when run-time errors occur (product related - not user or application related)
• Proper HTML reports
• Console logging
• CI integration with console logs

I've used it for approximately two years.

No real blockers. The application we were testing was pretty much covered by the tool.

I didn't need to use them.

I didn't need to use them.

I have worked with Selenium and TestNG. This product was a customer request.

Depending on the approach you follow, the set-up is complex in different ways. Having an Object Repository that is not stored but built through the run is the most difficult and time consuming task. Custom libraries are also very time consuming to build.

In-house implementation for a customer.

Setting this up from the beginning requires a lot of reading and effort spent. You need an experienced person to set the framework up and it will also take time to implement it so the ROI will be realised in the future.

• Realizing more test automation scenarios and managing the entire DevOps lifecycle.
• Running test cases along the entire day.

The approach to the automation test makes the test activities more interesting and improves the software quality.

The ability to base the test automation on object recognition with the possibility of managing the object repository is the most valuable feature. 

In my opinion, the improvement of the object recognition of new technologies and the capacity to catch more performance info should be desirable.

- Built in object repository and storing elements.

- Less coding experience.

- Reporting dashboards.

- Supports desktop, web and mobile product automation.

- Continuous integration is possible with QC and Jenkins.

- Good customer support.

- Various formats of reporting support should be possible.

Right now UFT supports exporting reports in either HTML or PDF in short or detailed format. If exporting reports could be extended to Excel, csv, XML, XSLT, mht formats that would be greatly appreciated.

- They should improve performance and consistency during execution.

There will be performance degradation on the test environment due to long continuous executions of automation scripts which leads to inconsistency of results, a better way to resolve this problem should be addressed at some point.