OpenText UFT One Reviews

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 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.

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.

We use Micro Focus UFT One for testing web pages and the script is in AngularJS.

Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent.

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

Micro Focus UFT One is not stable.

The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good.

The support from Microsoft is not good. They are very lazy in answering anything. If we create a request, it takes months for them to respond to us.

I have used previously C Sharp and Selenium HQ, and I prefer them over Micro Focus UFT One.

The setup of Micro Focus UFT One is easy.

I would advise others to use Selenium HQ and C Sharp because they are better, consistent, reliable, and scalability than Micro Focus UFT One.

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

We use it for automation. It helps to automate test scenarios for graphical user use cases.

Historically, we have faced a lot of maintenance issues with automation using traditional UFT, because UFT has a mechanism for identifying an object where you have to add object properties. However, if a change happens in the application and your object properties change, then you have to go and update the object properties again, only then can you use those scripts. So, we were using a lot of personnel for script maintenance. Whereas, in UFT One, I like that our maintenance costs have been reduced by a lot because UFT One is using an artificial intelligence feature to identify objects visually.

We use it to do multi-platform testing. 

UFT One Automation provides Codeless Test Automation.

The solution will automatically run a script, so you need less knowledge to run a script.

OpenText UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes.

It improves automation efficiency.

The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails. 

I have been using UFT for the last seven or eight years. UFT One was just launched three or four months back, so I have been using it for a couple of months. 

It is reliable. Sometimes, the GUI does crash.

It is highly scalable. 

There are around 150 users of UFT One with 8,000 test scenarios running four times a month. We are also running around 500 scripts in UFT One.

Our internal team is sufficient for technical issues.

We have used a lot of different tools. We have used Selenium and Python as well as Java-based REST API for regular testing. With UFT one, we have all the solutions under an umbrella, so we don't have to think about other tools. It also supports API and HTML testing. Selenium only supports Java, and there is no support for HTML.

We didn't need to do too much with the initial setup because there is an installation team.

It takes one or two days to create test automation scripts.

Object maintenance is reduced.

We have not yet implemented the license for the AI features. However, I got a chance from OpenText to join a Hackathon for India when they launched the product, which included the AI feature. I am hoping that my company will implement this feature soon because the solution's AI capabilities will reduce my test creation time.

Every day, tools are getting smarter. UFT One is like this.

Before implementing, do a demo with your existing applications.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of 10.

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.

We are working with a desktop-based application and we use the solution to automate testing of the application.

UFT One has helped us to reduce testing timelines. Earlier, during our manual testing days, it would take 15 days to certify a release, but with UFT One and automation, we are able to achieve that within five days. That's how important it is. It also improves the quality of our testing.

We have also seen an improvement in test coverage, going from 80 percent to over 90 percent.

In addition, it helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback.

There are a few limitations when it comes to automating desktop-based application testing. You need a medium to run the test cases. We used to run it as a test suite. OpenText provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work. We have other apps which help us to integrate all the tests into a dashboard. So one area for improvement would be to allow us to run that test suite.

We would also like to see improvement when it comes to generating reports.

OpenText UFT One is the latest edition, but I have been using UFT for four years.

UFT One provides pretty good stability.

Scalability isn't really applicable to us because we have 10 virtual machines and UFT is installed in all of them. Jenkins is what takes care of the scalability, based on the workload. It allocates the jobs to any number of servers that are available.

I don't know how many people are using UFT One in our company, but on our team we have 15 people working with it. They are testers and automation engineers.

Plans to increase usage depend on the new initiatives that are coming up. For about a year and a half we have been using UFT on 15 virtual machines, to its full potential. There are plans to increase its usage, because there are new projects coming up and we intend to deploy UFT on them.

If there are issues, when we reach out to the support team, they are able to assist us. It may be something like we were running an older version and there was a new deployment that created this kind of issue. But the support team is always able to assist us. I would rate their technical support at nine out of 10 or even a 10.

We didn't have a previous solution. We were looking for a solution where, once the elements of the object repository are created they stay there. Also, when there are changes to the application, how quickly would it be able to transition as a result? We were mainly looking for object identification and consistency of the tool.

There aren't many tools on the market for automating desktop application testing, but one of them is OpenText UFT. We tried UFT and it seemed to be suitable, so we started using it for automation testing. It suited our requirements for desktop application testing.

We tried TestComplete, but I was not part of the team when the decision was made to go with UFT One.

Everyone has their own requirements, but based on my experience with UFT, I have found it to be very consistent. If anyone is looking to automate web-based or mobile-based applications, UFT is very good. My advice would be to try it and explore UFT a lot.

Using it, we have learned how to design our framework and how to adapt it to improve our test suite. We have learned how to write effective test cases and how to improve the usability of the functions that we add.

AI is kind of exciting but, at the same time, it's not available for desktop-based applications yet. So we are waiting to make use of AI. In general, AI helps to reduce testing time. It increases the amount of reusability and it also makes the tester's life easier by asking them to identify the objects and differentiate them. In addition, it helps to identify any elements that could be missed by the human eye. Those are the features that we think will be helpful for us, once they are available for desktop application testing.