OpenText UFT One Reviews

One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA. I believe we were still using customer technology such as Salesforce and SAP, but once Salesforce went cloud-based. We began using UFT primarily for SAP applications. SAP ECC, as well. Regardless of which desktop is installed, UFT is still quite powerful.

Micro Focus UFT One integrates well with SAP ECC, but not with the S/4HANA.

I believe there are a few problem statements, but the one that comes to mind first is that execution on SAP systems is time-consuming. It takes time. We spend a lot of time executing the scripts. 

For us, for example, the execution is time-consuming, in SAP, I have a regression suite for SAP, it would be close to 300 business scenarios, where every scenario, will have a minimum of 20 to 30 pieces. I'm referring to a business scenario, not a test scenario or a test suit.

I would have 300 business scenarios, but I just want to click a button and have it execute in an external common feed result. That kind of comfort that I have never felt here. Every script we have to run, as well as any manual intervention. Someone has to be present. We have a lot of challenges ahead of us.

The second issue is test data management, which is a little cumbersome for this tool, and the third is that Microsoft only works with certain SAP modules.

It performs well, but it doesn't work as well on the web GUI as it does on Tosca, Selenium HQ, or Worksoft. Micro Focus, in my opinion, lacks more SAP versions.

Another issue is anywhere SAP has this overnight batch scripting that needs to stay where I have to run certain parts of the script for today, then wait until tomorrow for the batch jobs to run, and then execute the same script from where it left off. Those kinds of scenarios are extremely difficult to replicate in UFT.

I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason.

Because when we first started 10 years ago, I thought QTP would be the tool for SAP automation, but I no longer believe that. There are so many competitors in the same landscape.

They must understand their UFT position in the market and position themselves accordingly. It is relatively easy for people to go to UFT when necessary. Even if the client, prefers Worksoft or Tosca, quick list automation tools. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has done anything differently over the years to keep their market share, or if they even agree on a strategy.

I have been working with Micro Focus UFT One for approximately nine years.

The stability of Micro Focus UFT One is very good and compatible with SAP ECC, which is a component of it.

In my opinion, and based on my implementation knowledge. In our environment, it is very stable when working with my SAP legacy application, but now with SAPS/4HANA, which is hosted in the cloud. Micro Focus has a long way to go for those systems, in my opinion.

Because of SAP, I would rate the stability a five out of ten.

In terms of scalability, on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the best, I would rate it a five, because we couldn't use Micro Focus across the technology. It was good within SAP, but scalability comes with its own set of complications. I don't think it is as adaptable as it could be compared to my other tools, which have a good number of reusable components.

I can quote license numbers because my customer has enough licenses, but what we consume is much lower because we only use it for one part of the enterprise because Micro Focus is not worth the time. I couldn't use it as a single entry tool strategy for my team's automation tools.

I would say we have enough licenses. We have 100 licenses dealing with the customer. However, I am consuming hundreds of licenses from the automation.

We raised SAP cases with the SAP team whenever we encountered a problem. But I am not sure how well the new tools work off the task of raising new cases with them to resolve. I don't believe we raise much with Micro Focus.

We have not contacted technical support with MicroFocus. 

We went through our client. Worksoft is a software tool that my customer purchased. Worksoft is also a vendor for my customer. However, we continue to raise technical use cases and technical cases with Worksoft in order to resolve our optimization technical issues. But, from what I recall, we don't do anything similar with Micro Focus.

I have hands-on experience with Micro Focus. I have, implementation knowledge of LoadRunner on Worksoft. And I did a proof of concept for that kind of model for one of my projects. That is my experience with these tools.

Micro Focus UFT is a good product in my opinion. I can say it's a stable system and it's a legacy. We have been using it for a long time. You can see that the resource pool that I would get if I worked for UFT is quite good. In this regard, I believe Micro Focus UFT would be my first choice for SAP implementation; however, they are not as up-to-date with industry demands as the other providers.

I believe it was satisfactory. But the only challenge we had was whether there was support or not. The installation within the technology was fine, but if I wanted to use it across multiple technologies in an end-to-end integrative scenario, it was a little lacking. Unlike other tools.

They provide customized packages for each technology, just like other Windows, but we don't see that type of library with the UFT. They do have one, but I don't think it's very advanced.

The client has a large number of licenses, which they obtained along with their SAP. The SAP licenses include Application LifeCycle Management. And this has been with our client for at least 12 to 15 years.

I believe it should be three and a half to four out of five. The price is reasonable. They are inexpensive.

The clients we work with are partners with MicroFocus.

I would rate Micro Focus UFT One a five out of ten.

OpenText UFT One is currently used in our company, MLC, which Insignia Financial has recently purchased. Our organization is in the process of migrating our platform to the ones used in Insignia Financial, and as a part of our planning, we aim to standardize the tools in our company.

I do not use testing tools in the company. There is a separate testing team in our organization that uses testing solutions. I am only involved in the area of technical service for the platform. I look into areas like the ecosystem's cost, licensing, and standardization. Some in-house personnel in our company manage the area of testing capability, but a lot of it is outsourced to some other party.

The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product.

I have been using OpenText UFT One for years. My company is a customer of the product.

My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years. My company did not face any issues with the testing capabilities of the product, but we need to consider rationalizing the technology and toolsets present in our organization. There were some challenges with the product, but there were people in our company who were not from the development team to take care of the part that involved scripting. With the product, most of the automation part was taken care of by the testing team in our company. There weren't many differences in our company due to the issues in the solution because of how our company had outsourced certain work for which we were paying anyway.

Our company currently has around 90 testers on a program, but the numbers may vary and depend on whether a normal project ramps up or down. For the migration process, my company has around 400 testers since it is a process where there will be a ramp-up till November, after which there will be a need for only 90 to 100 users when the ramping-down process starts.

The testing teams in our company would contact the product's technical team. Our company has a different team to take care of the development area. From my company's management perspective, the developers did not like using OpenText UFT One and would prefer other tools like JMeter.

I use OpenText for areas like COBOL.

I think that in my company, a testing platform known as Mercury was used. After my company purchased a new testing platform, we are looking into what needs to be done.

OpenText UFT One was the third testing tool that was used in our organization. The issue in our company always stems from the fact that the GMs for testing have a certain comfort level based on which they bring their own set of people, and then they try to change the tool. My company has refrained from changing the tool we currently use in our organization because there is a lot of waste of money every time there is a product change. My company is dealing with the shoes related to how many tests are needed and how we can leverage the teams because, presently, we focus on having more permanent people in our organization, for which the standardization of tools is important.

In our company, we use IBM TOWER, with which we have discussions with OpenText. IBM TOWER is a legacy product that is really bad with the security part. IBM TOWER is an expensive product to upgrade, making it an area of worry for our company. There are multiple subsidiaries of our organization where IBM TOWER is used. IBM TOWER can be considered a product that falls under the category of an end-of-life tool.

The pricing of the product is an issue. The other product that my company is considering against OpenText UFT One is an equally bad solution. The aforementioned statement proves that pricing may not be a criterion when planning to purchase a solution, but our company needs to look into how much investment we have on the platform we use compared to other subsidiaries where some alternate products are used.

Against OpenText UFT One, my company considers a product named Tosca.

My company faces a challenge presently since we have got to do a migration by the end of the current year. One of the options that our company has in order to ensure that we do not lose the benefits of automation and regression testing is to delay the changes of tools in our company until the migration process is carried out.

Speaking about how the tool is used in our company for automated functional and regression testing, I would say that OpenText UFT One is used for regression testing. The tool's level of regressions is used for system tests, SITS, and some UFT regression tests as well. The issue we face in our company is when we migrate or consolidate data on some of the platforms since we have to rewrite some of the scripts. Owing to the aforementioned issue my company faces with the tool, we are looking for a way to see how we can automatically change, migrate, or consolidate data on another platform.

My company is looking at some of the performance testing tools in the market. My company looks at the products in the market separately based on the different tests for which we require them so that there is not much of an overlap of functionalities in different tools for the test cases. My company wants to also look into solutions that can provide all the functionalities in one product. The other non-functional testing areas, like monitoring and integration capabilities with ServiceNow and other tools, can also be tested.

Our company has an architecture team that looks into the product that we use, after which the team puts forth some options for us, but the head of the testing team and testing SMEs carries out the evaluation process. I don't have hands-on experience in the aforementioned area.

Considering the last three years, there has been a good level of satisfaction from the use of the product that our company has experienced. The testing teams in our company did not complain about OpenText UFT One. There were some issues in terms of the development phase since our company could not roll it out to the DevOps team as the developers couldn't pick up the product easily.

I rate the overall tool a seven out of ten.

We use the solution on web applications. Recently, we used it for a data validation service. We use it for functional test cases. For example, when someone opens an account in a bank, we test that process. This involves backend validations and UI validations on the mainframe. Then, we check if the same data appears correctly on the web application.

We use OpenText UFT One to automate end-to-end flows that involve multiple applications. We can handle combinations of backend, mainframe, and web applications. If we use Selenium, it's not suitable for all these combinations.

The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool.

The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy. 

I rate the tool's stability an eight to nine out of ten. The scripts are stable. 

I haven't reached out to the tool's support yet. It is an old tool with documentation and websites for reference.

OpenText UFT One's deployment is straightforward. The tool gets installed when you click "next". By default, all other prerequisites will get installed automatically. You don't have to do anything.

We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost. 

The impact of implementing OpenText UFT One in our testing strategy has been somewhat conservative. It depends on how automation tools are utilized within the organization. Our approach has been quite planned, but overall, automation efforts haven't increased.

The main differences between OpenText UFT One and other functional testing tools are features like record, playback, and the object repository.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

I am currently providing services for a client in the insurance domain that uses Guidewire applications. Micro Focus UFT One has a plugin that allows us to automate applications, whereas Selenium can only be used to automate web applications. With the Micro Focus UFT One plugin, we can automate any application. We use Micro Focus UFT One script to create policies for the manual team in order to reduce the manual effort required. Once we have the new development, we run the regression suites. To save time and effort, we run these scripts in the evening or night, using multiple machines. This, in turn, provides the manual team with the test data they need.

Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways. The solution can be used for object identification and for objects that are not unique, descriptive programming can be used without the use of an object repository. The latest version of Micro Focus UFT One also allows for Selenium scripts to be run. The solution is simple and requires little coding knowledge. In comparison to Selenium, we don't need to know Java or be proficient in Java. This web scripting is much easier as most features such as data tables and reports are already built in. Whereas Selenium requires the user to write their own code.

In the past, we used Internet Explorer to run our scripts and when it was decommissioned we switched over to Google Chrome but we had some compatibility issues in the beginning. The issues were corrected with Chrome but I would like both Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge to be compatible with the solution.

We used to have difficulty with some of the Guidewire application objects because they would often change, requiring us to write many lines of code for a single object. Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient.

I have been using the solution for over ten years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten.

Currently, there are three of us on this project. However, I believe that many users are using multiple applications, such as Oracle, SAP, and Guidewire, as well as some specific applications. Micro Focus UFT One is being used in comparison to Tricentis Tosca, due to the cost of licensing Tricentis Tosca. Many people in my organization are using Micro Focus UFT One.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

Since the decommissioning of our Internet Explorer browser last June, our scripts have not been running in Chrome. We have raised a ticket and reached out to Micro Focus for assistance. The support team told us that there is a Chrome browser version that is compatible with Micro Focus UFT One. Additionally, every month Micro Focus will hold a one-hour session with a partner of the week to answer any questions we have regarding Micro Focus UFT One or our projects. The Micro Focus technical team will be available to provide answers to our organization.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward and I give it a nine out of ten.

I attended training for Selenium and Tricentis Tosca. Selenium was more difficult because it lacked certain built-in features, unlike Micro Focus UFT One. Many people have said that the Tricentis Tosca license cost is high so, even though the tool is good, the cost must be taken into consideration. As a result of this, I recommended Micro Focus UFT One over Tricentis Tosca and Worksoft Certify to my client last year.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

I recommend Micro Focus UFT One to others.

I use the solution in my company for process automation and test automation.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it offers a lot of application types. The tool offers original scripts. If you respect original stuff, then you will like it. Earlier, it was called QuickTest Professional (QTP), and it was later changed and branded as OpenText UFT One. The tool is easy to use and is an original solution. If someone has had an experience with the tool for a long time, they can use it even now.

From an improvement perspective, I want the product to maintain the original way it was working in the past. Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required. With the low code and no code part, the tool does not focus much on the capabilities and support of the automation plans. The price of the tool is too high, and it is also an area where improvements are required.

I have been using OpenText UFT One for more than five years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

It is not a scalable solution. I rate the tool's scalability a five out of ten.

My customers own big companies and they have money to buy the tool, so they buy legacy system that work for ten to twenty years. If they want to automate, they need to use the tools that are compatible. Considering the old and big organizations in Thailand, I think there are around ten to twenty customers that use the tool.

There have been hard times with the support of the tool. The tech team did not meet our expectations when we approached them with very difficult issues.

I rate the technical support a six to seven out of ten.

Neutral

The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward. You have to know the objective of the software, and then you will understand that the setup phase is easy.

Anyone can complete the product's installation phase with the help of the installation guide that it offers and download the tool.

Most of my staff members were involved in the installation process.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises version.

The solution can be deployed in an hour.

The automation part makes it difficult to provide any real benefits in terms of ROI. We need to implement the product well enough to benefit from it. Right now, the tool's cost is very high. The tool has a lighter version, which is better than the real tool, but right now, it is not good enough for automation. Based on the policies of organizations, we may need to purchase the tool because the newer automation and testing solutions in the market do not support legacy systems. OpenText UFT One supports most legacy and new systems, and so its support metric is higher than the other products in the market.

The tool's price is high.

I need to evaluate many products, including the ones from Tricentis, the open source tools, like UiPath.

The product can integrate with the process or test management tools. If you want to schedule and automate the run, and if a solution is in a certain process with some condition, OpenText UFT One can be set up and be a part of the workflow. Anywhere, if you understand DevSecOps or NetOps concepts, then OpenText UFT One can be used with the DevOps concept as well. I think it's quite easy to use if you know the product's command line in Windows, and it can be enabled by any tool that runs it. Though OpenText UFT One has API indicators, the scripts in Windows can also be helpful.

Speaking of the challenges the tool helps users overcome in terms of testing workflows, I can say that the tool can be used for automation and testing purposes, and the benefits of it is that the solution can produce results and execute them in a certain period of time, making it one of the main capabilities of OpenText UFT One and OpenText's process automation and testing functionalities. When it comes to creating scripts, if you are familiar with OpenText UFT One, things will be easy for you.

The AI technology that needs to be involved in the tool is to discover the best object on the screen. AI will match what we think is the right thing in the right place. If we click the cancel button, the users should be able to find the cancel button on the screen and then click it. Users should be able to find the object on the screen when they try to click it.

Around twenty engineers maintain the tool.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

We are using Micro Focus UFT One for automating the test cases.

The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation.

Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field.

I have been using Micro Focus UFT One for approximately two years.

The stability of Micro Focus UFT One is good.

We have 10 people in my company using this solution.

The solution is scalable.

The support could be improved.

I rate the support from Micro Focus UFT One a seven out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup of Micro Focus UFT One was not difficult. However, we had an IT team do it.

We had our IT team do the implementation of the solution.

We have seen a return on investment using Micro Focus UFT One.

The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some.

I would recommend this solution for those who do repetitive activities in testing. 

I rate Micro Focus UFT One a nine out of ten.

We are responsible for automation of the regression test cases. We have a standard set of regression test cases, which are comprised of SAP solutions, web-based applications, as well as some Windows-based applications. We have test cases which cater to each of these solutions individually.

In addition, we have test cases to test things from end-to-end. That means the data has to flow from one application to another and it has to be validated. We write reusable pieces of code, which are stitched together to create the end-to-ends.

In SAP, transaction codes are available and they are automated. They are stitched together to form a test case. For example, if a customer places an order on the website, we will get an order number in SAP. We will process that order in SAP to create the delivery with a particular T-code. Once we process that delivery, we will mark it as "good session," which means the order itself will flow out of our warehouse via the transportation. Once the customer receives it, we have the invoicing process. We automate these individual T-codes, and then stitch them together.

In our organization, a developer will develop a piece of code and give it to us. We will test it and tell them about any issues or defects. The way we do that is we automate some piece of their code, whatever the core functionality is, and get ready for the next iteration. That means that when the sprint goes from Sprint 1 to Sprint 2, we make sure that Sprint 1 is not impacted because of new code deployment. The way we have benefited from UFT is that we are not using manual regression testing. Whatever code we have developed will be enhanced in Sprint 2 , and we keep that piece ready for Sprint 3 regression. Therefore, over a period of time, we will have the flow ready, and we don't have to do manual testing from scratch for every release.

Previously, we were doing manual testing for each sprint, and when we got to an advanced sprint, like Sprint 4 or 5, we would have to stop and test that entire functionality again. UFT has helped us a lot in reducing the manual effort and in passing the savings along to our client. Regression efforts have been reduced by at least 20 percent, if not more.

Initially, we were using UFT 12 or 12.53 and then we started slowly increasing by installing the patches and moving to the next versions. When compared with UFT and manual execution, we have definitely saved a lot of effort, somewhere in the range of 60 to 70 percent when compared with our efforts to manually test. A script which takes around half an hour to execute in automation takes around 3.5 hours for manual execution, along with documentation because we execute things in a way that it creates the documentation as well.

It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting. There are many people on my team who have started learning automation.

I have been using UFT for a couple of years, but I have only been using UFT One for the past two to three months. I am still learning many things about UFT One.

We haven't faced many issues with UFT One in terms of stability. If your system meets the requirements they indicate, you should not face problems. In a machine where we had less memory, we did have some trouble. Since we upgraded the memory for that machine, we have not faced any memory issues or stability issues with UFT One.

Scalability, for our needs, has worked spectacularly well. There were some issues that we were facing with some of the patches. They were taken under consideration by OpenText and we got proper updates from the team.

When we want to increase the number of people in a team, because our licenses are limited, we sometimes face an issue, but that is not their problem because we have chosen limited licenses. We sometimes find it difficult to get people onboarded when we have a lot of work and that sometimes hinders the work. With an open source tool, you don't have any such problem. If you have a lot of work and you want to onboard more people you get it done.

Because our project was already in UFT, we are trying to utilize UFT One to have proper capabilities in AI and for automation from screenshots. But it is good to see a lot of changes and we are trying to utilize them in our upcoming releases and projects.

Support is okay. We have not faced many problems. But if we do face some issue, we can definitely raise a ticket and the ticket is looked into. I don't have any complaints about customer support. I would rate it about an eight out of 10.

It's not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution.

I have certification in Tosca and UiPath.

Tosca is basically scriptless automation which is also good. UiPath is not technically for regression testing, it's an RPA tool. You don't have validations, per se; you have to create them. Because I have a longer period of association with UFT, and some of the other tools did not help me in some situations, I go with UFT.

From my experience, UFT One is good in terms of automation of multiple applications. For example, if you have five applications and any one of them is not suitable for automation by UFT One, you may have to re-think using it. But if all the applications are compatible with UFT One and you are able to automate, it's better to go with UFT One. 

We don't have much continuous testing in our process because we don't do Agile testing, but we do have some amount of testing for what we call "rapids," for defects or announcements. It is useful when it comes to the second or third sprints where there are use cases in which we can leverage speeding up the testing. But we haven't used UFT One for a continuous delivery, as in from build to deployment.

There are several new features which we can explore and use for continuous testing, but our project, not being Agile right now, has limitations in that regard. Management is looking to convert it into an Agile project soon and I expect we will start using UFT One full-fledged, with all its features.

I'm very comfortable with the UFT One for our project needs.

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.