OpenText UFT One Reviews

We use Micro Focus UFT Developer because we had a desktop-based application. To automate it, we used UFT for the automation framework and to run tests, including the regression test, smoke test, and integration test. We use the data from the UFT framework.

We had 10 users. That's where the license challenge comes into the picture because we couldn't afford that many licenses, so we had to reduce the team. We don't have plans to increase the number of users because we have been using UFT One for the past three months.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support.

They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost.

The tool also takes a lot of memory. It's really heavy on the CPU. If I need to run the virtual machine, I cannot go beyond 8GB RAM. 

I have used this solution for four years.

The solution is stable.

Technical support is good. I didn't work with Micro Focus directly. I used Stack Overflow and another blog. People who have used Micro Focus technical support have told me that it's good.

We're currently using UFT One.

Deployment was quick. We're not on the cloud and all, so everything was done manually. We haven't faced any challenges in deployment.

Deployment was completed in-house.

We have reduced 20% of our total efforts. A lot of automation has been put into place.

The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license.

It's a yearly subscription.

The current proof of concept is for Tosca.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. 

I would recommend this solution to those who want to use it.

For desktop-based applications, the automation is good. They offer wide support if you're stuck with anything. There are a lot of support groups like Stack Overflow and other community groups where you can find the resolution for a technical issue. There's a lot of support because it's an older tool. 

It's pretty comprehensive and easy to learn. The industry is full of open source and cheaper options because everything is moving to the cloud. For instance, Tosca poses a challenge to HP. Micro Focus should reduce the license cost. Otherwise, they will be very much cornered in the market.

VBScript is easier to learn than Java.

There are many new and old features in UFT 14.01 which are valuable.

In UFT 14.01, new support has been added for AngularJS 2.0 and 4.0. While most of the AngularJS objects were recognized out-of-the-box in UFT 12, 14.01 now also recognizes grid objects, such as Web tables.

Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator.

• Need 10 to 100 random city names?
• A range of random dates?
• What about a list of first and last names? Random numbers, emails and passwords? Even IP and MAC addresses?
• Need a list of random part numbers in a custom format? The Regular Expression data generator will fill your need.

This data can be exported to internal Excel data worksheets that give upfront visual access to data for starting data driven projects.

The UFT has multiple approaches for object identification including:

• Object Repository
• Descriptive programming
• Object collections
• Relational recognition (Below or right of another object)
• Insight objects (Image recognition)
• Virtual objects

Ensures you can find objects by the DOM, CSS and XPath, but descriptive programming is often easier to read.

Connections to MS Excel and popular databases allow users to move to the advanced frameworks of data acquisition with SQL queries.

The fully-redesigned Run Results module is simply beautiful. Someone tried to compliment me on rolling my own results page, and I admitted what they were looking at was completely out-of-the-box.

Let’s not forget being able to make external calls to supporting tools, like AutoIt, as well as the Windows API, to provide expanded functionality.

Lastly, support of version control in both the stand-alone tool and the ALM repository.

Our current project features more than a 1000 manual test cases, which took several days and resources to execute. Now, the suite executes in six hours and less than two when run on multiple machines.

With Jenkins connected, or the new cloud-based StormRunner Functional Testing, the tests can be launched anytime, even at the end of day, and be ready for analysis the next morning.

It is important to note here that another Micro Focus product, ALM (aka Quality Center and Test Director), has long suffered from “click-itis” since its release. Nearly every dropdown is collapsed by default. Two option choices are implemented with dropdown lists rather than radio buttons. Most edit fields require opening an additional edit panel in the unlikely chance you need to bold or italicize a step summary. So navigation is a perpetual repetitive click-expand experience that quickly becomes a total turn off to the user.

I mention this shortcoming of ALM because, unfortunately, this design is seeping into UFT as well. UFT 14.01 has eliminated the "Run" button from the shortcut menu bar when a function library window has the focus. In effect, where you could click just one button to run a script in UFT 12.54, you will now have to click the Test tab first to get the Run button to appear to be clicked. Fortunately, the F5 (Run) and F11 (Step-through) keyboard shortcuts still work regardless of the window with focus.

It looks like User Acceptance Testing of the product is getting bypassed entirely because this design has precedence in UFT. Throwing an object to the Watch window almost always requires two attempts. So, train yourself to always click the Watch window tab first. More “Click-itis” for the user.

UFT 14.01 did make one long awaited improvement that is very welcome. The object Spy utility can now be left open while writing code. This means you can paste multiple property names and values from the Spy into your object identification code without having to repeatedly close and reopen the Spy tool. Now, if two Spy windows could be launched to compare the properties of two similar objects, that would be another welcome click-reducing feature.

The list of good features far exceed the bad. Here are a few that could be addressed in upcoming releases to get the tool to a perfect rating:

• Double-clicking a function in the Toolbox window used to take the developer to the source code. Now, it throws a function call wherever the cursor happens to be. This runs the risk of breaking code. UFT 14.01 fixes a feature that would replace selected code. It now just jams the code in the middle of the selection, which is still not great.
• Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function.
• The Run results module counts the number of Fails and Warnings in a test, but not the total Pass results. Workaround: Roll your own results counter code.
• No RegEx support of integers properties in the Repository and Descriptive Programming. If the tool just allowed [1-9]\d+ in the Height and Width properties, the returned object collections would exclude all non-visible objects. Workaround: All objects in an object collection need to be tested for height or width to ensure visibility, but slowing execution.

I have worked with QTP/UFT for 13 years continuously. My projects over the years have included the tool along with the use of ALM (aka Quality Center or Test Director), Business Process Testing (BPT), and TAO for SAP.

The product is extremely stable. It's been my tool of choice for nearly two decades because it is solid.

Scalabiliy is entirely up to the framework design. While Record and Playback are available for new users, it will result in fragile high maintenance and unscalable test suites. That's true of most automation tools, so a hybrid framework design approach is always highly recommended. Fortunately, UFT is extremely flexible in design.

Advanced developers can go so far as to design a framework which translates to Plain English ("Click Ok Button") into script code (WebButton("InnerText:=Ok").click). This leads to function designs similar to Gherkin & Cucumber, bypassing the object repository entirely.

With BPT (Business Process Testing), non-technical users can easily build test cases inside of ALM (Application Lifecycle Management) from scripted components designed by automation engineers. Simply copy an existing test and add additional components that meet your test requirement.

Scaling to push multiple tests executions with different data sets is also easy to implement particularly with the new Data Generation Tool described above.

Lastly, scaling object class methods to add new functionality or modify the process of execution is achievable with just a few lines of code. The tool even provides a Function Definition Generator Wizard to help build the code the first time.

Micro Focus support is OK. Orasi support is outstanding.

Prior to using VBScript-based UFT/QTP, I used Mercury Interactive's C-based Winrunner before the product was discontinued.

Initial setup is very straightforward and takes about 45 minutes, including one system restart. The tool installs the bare minimum of add-ins. To add more, it takes about 15 minutes.

Installing the Terminal Emulator add-in is easy, but configuring it is a bit tricky. This being a bit of a horse and cart issue, as you can't see the configuration option unless the Emulator is up and connected first.

For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand.

While many will argue there are other tools available that are free, you may find it hard to find one which supports so many new and legacy web technologies, terminal emulators, and Windows thick client applications. It's the kitchen sink of tools with an easy to learn language, a solid history, and extensive support resources.

I only work QTP/UFT engagements, however I do compare functionality of other tools in my spare time, including Selenium, SmartBear TestComplete, and HPE LeanFT.

AngularJS support, Data Generation and New Spy features are great, but creeping “Click-itis” sours user experience.

There are so many features! The tool is easy to learn, flexible, and extensive.

Be sure to have new automation engineers trained beyond basic YouTube videos, and avoid on the job training. This will prevent rookie mistakes that will generate unmaintainable scripts and re-work in the future.

Micro Focus provides tool training, as does Orasi and RTTS in New York.

It is a flexible tool. Its object-capturing criteria and capabilities are very strong. The product’s execution is faster than other products, and we can get the results quickly. It interacts directly with the browser's DOM and any mobile application's activity. Inspecting objects is a very powerful feature of the product. The results are precise and accurate. It has different uses in artificial intelligence. Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate.

A person who buys the solution for the first time will not have a step-by-step approach to using it. I have worked with Cypress, Selenium RC, WebDriver, and other tools. I have been automating applications for the last ten years. I have never seen a solution that is difficult to learn. Learning was a challenge for me with UFT One.

The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features. It provides paid training. Understanding the tool's complete architecture took me one or two weeks. The product should provide free training for basic features like how to capture an object, create a new test case, connect the test cases, and create libraries. The product should explain each function and feature on the left side of the menu bar in a step-by-step way.

The product should provide a mechanism for online reporting accessible to every stakeholder. When I used to create test cases and execute them, I used to get the local reports. There should be a live online reporting mechanism. The live application must be available for every stakeholder, whether a manager, developer, or QA.

I have been using the solution for around one year.

The product is very stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. Three people in my organization use the solution.

I have used technical support. The support team was very supportive. The team would set up meetings with me, diagnose the issues, and sort them out. However, there were some delays in the meetings.

Positive

I have worked with other tools like Ranorex and Katalon, but UFT One is comparatively faster.

The initial setup was not easy. I purchased three licenses because we were planning to hire people. When I started working on the solution, at a certain point, I got stuck and regretted purchasing it. My client had paid for it. I had a good experience later. However, in the beginning, it was really frustrating.

The deployment took around one hour. We needed two people to deploy the product in our organization.

Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive. For the coverage and accuracy that it provides, the product is good compared to other products. However, it is a difficult solution. The time spent learning the solution also costs the organization. I rate the pricing a seven or eight out of ten.

We also evaluated Tosca along with Micro Focus UFT One.

I will recommend the solution for its accuracy, speed, scalability, and UI. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We're primarily using the solution for end-to-end regression and integration testing. We also use it for volume and performance and performance testing. It runs the entire gamut of testing. 

The solution is very useful. It offers a wide range of testing. 

We can apply testing for the entire week and test everything. You can do basic automation, which is helpful.

It is easy to set up. 

The solution is scalable.

It is stable.

The pricing is very reasonable. 

It is script-based. We'd like it to have less scripting. It might make it easier to use. 

Newer tools have a nicer user interface.

We'd like something more aligned with SAP.

Technical support could be more responsive. 

We started using the solution more than ten years ago.

The stability is good. We haven't had any problems at all. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten for reliability. 

The scalability is pretty good. We've used it over the last ten years. We can scale from one single ERP to multiple ERPs. I'd rate the scalability nine out of ten. 

The technical support we do not use too much; however, with other technical support services we've used, we find that this team takes a long time to respond back.

Neutral

We recently started using Tricentis Tosca. We've used it for about three months. It offers lesser scripting, which may be easier from an end-user perspective. It's also well aligned with SAP.

The solution was straightforward to set up. I'd rate it seven out of ten in terms of ease of setup. It wasn't too complex. 

However, I wasn't directly involved with the initial setup and cannot speak to the deployment process. 

It's the best pricing compared to other tools on the market. I'd rate it nine out of ten in terms of affordability. 

We are an end-user.

Micro Focus and SAP don't seem to have the same relationship that they had previously, so we are leaning more toward Tosca, which also has the benefit of offering less scripting. 

It's a good tool. You need to invest some time in getting it implemented. However, we are happy with it.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. The functionality is good. It covers the entire range of tests; however, from a business perspective, we wanted something more user-friendly.

I personally have experience with UFT One, yet only with the GUI part. I'm not familiar with the AP part. There are projects which work with UFT One and also with the AP part as well.

It's not a capture-and-replay. We don't use this only for getting something into the editor. There are possibilities to materialize the scripts.

We use the object repository, which is really great. And so is the way objects are organized in UFT and the way you can use modules by yourself - not the actions, rather, the self-scripted modules in the function library. That's the main benefit for us.

It's simple to set up. 

Last year, we had a discussion with Micro Focus, and they said they have plans to switch from DBS to Python - or at least to offer Python as an additional programming language for building automation scripts. Then, there was no progress in these plans. That's our main concern with UFT. PBS, as the programming language, is pretty old-fashioned, and a lot of things would be much easier with Python.

We had problems with the last version of the solution. There seems to be something wrong with the loading of external data into the internal data sheets. We loaded Excel sheets dynamically during test execution and stored them into the built-in data sheets of UFT, and it seems that sometimes you cannot reuse already existing internal sheets for storing new data in it from outside, from external Excel sheets. We used it a lot, and we didn't have any problems with that in the previous version. This is a new issue, and we tried to isolate this problem, and then we wanted to discuss it with Micro Focus directly. We have yet to contact them.

The solution is expensive. 

We've worked with the solution across several releases. We've used it for about ten years or so. 

The licensing is scalable. That said, the product itself is the product and we really build large test sets with hundreds and thousands of test scripts. So we didn't have any problem scaling the test sets, so to speak. Just not the product itself. I don't know how to scale the product itself.

There are a few alternatives when you want to automate tests for non-web applications. For example, Java applications or PowerBuilder applications, or .NET applications. UFT One is really, really good. When you only have to automate tests for web applications, then Selenium is maybe the better solution since it is much cheaper. It costs nothing as far as I know. You have to learn some programming language, however. You need to use Python or Java or something else in conjunction with Selenium. Maybe the first hurdle is a little bit steeper than using UFT. Then, when you can build some framework around Selenium, then maybe when I would have the personal choice, I would choose Selenium - only for web applications. While we know that there are some alternatives to UFT for non-web applications, we know there are not that many. Tosca is one of the big players. However, we don't know it. We only know that it exists, and most people who use it say it's really good.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

When I installed it on my virtual machine, it was less than an hour, and then it's up and running. We are well trained in such things, so maybe for one who is really new, this will take two or three hours to set up. I don't know. That said, it's not a major concern.

The pricing could definitely be lower. I don't know the prices by heart. I'm not the one who discussed this with Micro Focus. I've heard several times that this is really expensive and we also have problems exactly for that reason. For example, for a user interface test to Selenium. At least when the SUT, the system under test, is web-based. There's not only the buying price. It's also the maintenance price. 

I'm an end-user.

Currently, there is a 2022 version. For a couple of reasons, we've switched back to the 2021 release. We thought that we found an error in some strange special scenarios.

It's extremely useful for us with a little bit of potential to become better here and there. I would give the product an overall rating of eight out of ten.

The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance. Using the protocols, I can test a huge variety of applications in a company. If I implement OpenText UFT One in a project, I can test almost 90% or more of the tools used in highly digitalized banks.

The most useful feature is the recording option because it allows an expert user and a junior user to do a script in comparable ways.

The solution should have additional features, but not much. It already has some sort of artificial intelligence that must be developed. It needs to be in trend. The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible.

Often, people with open-source tools and only open-source knowledge take projects that OpenText should have taken.

I have been using OpenText UFT One for 20 years. I use the solution myself and recommend it to my customers.

There are issues with the technical support. Resolving your issues takes quite a long time until you get a guy who knows the task. I have worked for almost 20 years with OpenText products. I often prefer to use my crew with 10 or 15 years of experience rather than call their technical support team. I call the support team when a development or a patch is necessary and when it's a bug I can't fix because I'm not a developer inside their system.

Neutral

OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution. The solution's pricing is too high for the level of support and quality they offer. OpenText has extremely powerful tools. If you ask me to choose the best tool for a huge international telecom, an international bank, or an international oil and gas company, I will choose OpenText.

However, the tool has glitches that are visible to the customer. Since OpenText asks for a very high price, they should solve those glitches in at least a couple of years. Since there are glitches that have been unsolved for many years, I consider the pricing to be too high for what they offer.

I follow the OpenText pricing model because OpenText is actually selling, not me. I sell to my customers through my company, but I have to sell according to OpenText price metrics. When I propose functionalities to the customer, I propose the whole bundle, and then we discuss the price. The price is written individually on every offer.

The solution's cross-browser and multi-platform testing capabilities positively impact my testing efficiency because I don't have to change the tool. I'm using the cross-browser capability in old tools. It's even better if I use a printer with cross-browser functionality in manual testing. I can switch from one tool to another quite quickly. It's not only UFT; it's an integrated platform.

I integrate all the products easily. I know the entire architecture and integration, and I only work based on integration.

Most people do not understand that various tools like OpenText UFT One, LoadRunner, or Quality Center are integrated and work together. If you want to apply the entire methodology described in the International Standardization Organization standards, you have to think of these tools as a whole, not separately.

Most customers make the mistake of considering them separate items, especially when discussing pricing. These tools are powerful when they are integrated and work together. Otherwise, there are many variations in the market.

I primarily work with OpenText and recommend their products. If the customer wants another product, like Selenium, based on price or their agreed-upon internal matrix of tools, I have to work with Selenium.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

I use UFT One for GUI testing, specifically to test web applications across various technologies. I also use it for automating desktop application tests, including applications built in Java. Additionally, I conduct mobile testing for Android applications, utilizing parametrized actions.

Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One. In a couple of hours, many tests can be created, which significantly reduces costs related to QA testers. This efficiency means there is less need for programming knowledge, making test automation quicker than with tools like Selenium or Cypress.

The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests. I also appreciate the AI testing capabilities, making it easy to create tests without programming knowledge. The integrations with other products are simple and effective.

There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear. Additionally, incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.

I conduct testing using UFT One.

UFT One is very stable. It is a good tool in the market.

It is very scalable. The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers, and more licenses can be purchased for larger deployments.

Customer service is managed by OpenText, previously Micro Focus and HP, and they offer very good services. Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.

Positive

I use UFT One more technically. I have used SmartBear and Tricentis for comparison, noting differences like testing paradigms.

The initial setup is very easy and the tool comes with a wizard. It's a simple process to configure the necessary parameters.

It is simple to deploy UFT One. The tool comes with a setup wizard, just requiring parameter input.

Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.

The cost is reasonable considering it is one of the best tools in the market. It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.

I have used other tools like Tricentis and SmartBear. They have different paradigms, such as model-based testing.

UFT One is a very strong tool for automating testing and improving application quality.

I'd rate the solution nienout of ten.

This solution is typically used for desktop-based applications where you cannot use Selenium or other web-automation tools.

It's deployed on-premises.

There are five people in our organization who are using the solution.

It's a complete tool. The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel. You can do keyword-driven or data-driven frameworks easily, and you can create automation frameworks very quickly. It covers all the needs of a desktop-based application.

Integration with Jenkins and any CI/CD tool is also valuable.

It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower.

I would rate the stability as seven out of ten.

I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten.

Setup is straightforward. It takes time, but it depends on the CPU that you have. It's a one-time effort. At maximum, you need one admin person to handle maintenance and deployment.

Implementation can be done on-house.

We have seen a return on investment.

It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription.

My organization switched because they wanted to do the POC in the latest version, not the old version of UFT.

I would rate the solution as eight out of ten. I would recommend this solution for those who are looking into implementing it.