OpenText UFT One Reviews

The ability to customize automation using code is the most valuable feature. With the release of 12.5, UFT now includes a LeanFT license which will plug in to Visual Studio and allow usage with C#.

A close second would be the Object Spy, i.e. how UFT identifies objects. Although you can code with CodedUI and Selenium, the object identification tool in UFT is far superior.

Due to cost, my current employer doesn’t use UFT. However, I’ve used it at many different locations in the past. Automation in general will always provide value in test coverage. UFT bridges the coding gap by using VBScript, which is easier for less technical personnel to pick up. This greatly increases the number those people who can use the tool. The competition will require a developer-level skill set to get the same functional benefits.

There are some command-line and other crude methods to integrate UFT into non-HP software suites. This area could be improved, but overall there is little incentive for HP to do so.

I’ve used UFT for just over 12 years. In comparison, I’ve used CodedUI for about six months, and Selenium for only two months. As you may imagine, I have a significant grasp on UFT and what it can do. An argument could be made that with the same experience in the other two competitors, these tools may be on more equal footing.

As with any code base, well-designed and implemented automation code will make for easy maintenance, and a stable code base that will scale very well as the complexity of the suite grows. Nothing will save you from poor coding practices.

I’ve had little direct support from HP. I’ve instead used HP partners to get licensing and support. Specifically Orasi, they have been very helpful in the few support areas I’ve needed. I would rate them 9/10. As an advanced user, there are issues I’ve come across that Orasi wasn’t able to find a solution for. However, they did their due diligence and escalated to HP as appropriate.

It is very straightforward in its install and setup. An extra layer of complexity exists when trying to integrate it with Quality Center, but this is done via some settings and an add-in. The nice thing about UFT is that it’s a mature tool that has massive user-forum support on the internet. Although there is a lot of support for C# (Coded UI) and Java (Selenium), there isn’t as much in regards to the testing side of those languages.

Cost is the biggest issue with UFT. It is not cheap. However, when evaluating the full cost (not just the licensing), I believe UFT is actually a cheaper solution in the end. That being said, seat licenses that are tied to a specific machine (can be moved via support) run approximately $10,000 with tax and associated annual maintenance agreement. A concurrent license runs approximately 17K with tax and maintenance agreement.

From an ROI standpoint, you need to look at the automation effort in comparison to the manual work it would reduce, as well as increased code coverage and a consistent level of testing. In most cases, it will take 2-3 years before the automation suite is significant enough to start seeing its cost even out. Any organization contemplating automation should have that type of commitment to see the automation effort become successful.

I’ve evaluated a few different automation products. Only Selenium and CodedUI come close to the functionality and adaptability that UFT provides. I support UFT as the best solution due to the skill set needed to operate the tool. VBScript is verbose, but otherwise very easy for a non-coder to pick up. Selenium and CodedUI both require OOP languages that are more complex for the tester to pick up.

Overall my main concern, is with resources. There aren’t as many Selenium/CodedUI professionals in the marketplace therefore when it’s time to deal with turnover, it’s very difficult to find experienced automation personnel. That is not the case with UFT. An added plus for UFT is how it handles poorly designed and implemented web applications. I didn’t fully see this until I began to use CodedUI and Selenium.

If this is the first time implementing a solution, I would say make sure to read up on what it will take to implement. Get as much knowledge ahead of time to make it smoother. To hit the ground running, it is best to organize your manual tests so that automation can begin as soon as possible. What test cases are for Smoke tests? What test cases are for Regression? Starting automation without defining the work to be completed will waste precious time -- time you are paying for idle licensing.

We use the solution for API functional testing to analyze user interface, business logic outputs, etc.

The solution's user interface is good. It is easy to use for a nontechnical test as well.

They should improve the solution's tracing functionality. There should be an automated feature to load the backlog of test requirements.

We have been using the solution for eight years.

It is a stable solution. I rate its stability as an eight.

We have three solution users in our organization.

The solution's technical support team is good. Although it could have been faster while resolving the licensing error issue, we encountered some time back.

Positive

The solution is easy to install. The setup process takes a few hours and requires only one executive.

The solution's price is reasonable compared to other vendors. I rate its pricing as a four.

I advise others to speak with automation engineers to know the success criteria for the solution's proof of concept. Moreover, UFT needs to give insights on production status like Worksoft or Tricentis. Thus, I rate it as a seven.

UFT (erstwhile QTP) is a widely popular test automation tool. During my initial days, I used UFT extensively to automate test cases. Now, with the latest version of OpenText UFT One, there are added features that address the new-age testing requirements. In my current position as Practice Head of Test Automation competency at a Tier 1 company, we propose various befitting tools to our existing or new customers. Whenever we work on a particular solution or requirement, we propose automation tools to support the entire environment to support end-to-end automation. If my customer is looking for an automation solution, they will typically ask, "Can you provide a solution to automate my end-to-end scenario?" Every proposal or potential requirement is a new business case for us.

In some of our recent customer requirements, we have proposed the OpenText UFT One tool. The primary reason behind this is that a customer may have different systems, for e.g., a mainframe system, which is a legacy technology, their current web applications, like AngularJS or ReactJS, could include SAP ERP. In such an ecosystem, UFT One is the right fit to automate end-to-end systems.

Scripting is a basic feature of UFT One. Some tools may use programming languages like Java, Python, or Ruby; but UFT One uses a very basic, simple programming language called VBScript. The advantage of VBScript for a manual tester is if he/she has a basic knowledge of automation, and loops/conditions, then he can easily understand whatever script is created in UFT One, using VBScript. The point is that VBScript is very easy to understand with minimal knowledge. It can easily be modified as per requirement. UFT One all the technologies including a legacy to modern technologies.

For one of our customers, we proposed integration between UFT One and Azure DevOps (ADO). We were able to easily establish that integration, which means the solution's integration capability with third-party tools is s. With some tools, you may need additional effort to communicate with source code management (SCM) tools, whereas UFT One connects easily. There is a keyword view available in UFT One. Using that keyword view, you can see all the statements in proper order.

UFT One has its own feature called Test Combinations Generator to prepare test data. If I have data in an Excel file, then it is very easy to create an object in either Notepad, file system object, or database object. We can easily retrace the data.

Particularly, I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed.

UFT One supports AI features to automate web and mobile applications. For example, suppose, if earlier there was a button in the left corner, which now has moved to the right corner. In such a situation, we would need to update the script. However, with AI, there is no need to update the script. Within the screen, if that particular button is placed anywhere on the screen, then we can easily handle it and the script will not fail. The integration part is very easy for mobile automation, as well.

We can also automate PDF and forms, using UFT One. For example, one of our customers prepared a lot of macros in an Excel file and created their own custom options in the toolbar. Their requirement was to automate the Excel file, but not read the data, so we had to handle the different icons in the Excel file. Therefore, it generated the pivot table, selecting different options in the pivot table and validating some third-party applications.

UFT One can automate different technologies like SAP, Oracle, SFDC, Microsoft products, Mobile applications, and many more technologies.

From a sales pitch perspective, everyone is now looking for script less automation, whether they are using the feature or not. So, if UFT One is made as a script less tool entirely, that would be very good.

UFT also has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts.

We have been using the solution for 13 to 14 years. I started by using an older version of UFT One, Quick Test Professional (QTP) 6.5.

UFT One is 100 percent stable. There have been no crashes of any kind.

It is easily scalable. It supports increases in automation as well as integrates with third-party tools, like ALM Octane and Jenkins.

OpenText technical support is prompt. They will try to get you a proper solution to your inquiry.

It is very easy to install and configuration is not required.

Deployment time takes three to four minutes, though it depends on the RAM and performance of the processor. However, if you install MS Office, that will definitely take some time.

Our customers are always looking to reduce their efforts. This solution will give you such an advantage.

Depending on the landscape and stability of the customer application, they should see ROI (or the breakeven point) within six to nine iterations.

The license is important. If the license is up and running when you open it, there won't be any issues.

Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very cheap. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so OpenText offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive.

There are a lot of tools available in the market, however, the primary advantageous feature identified in UFT One is simple: It supports legacy to modern technologies. This is why I propose UFT One.

Everybody is aware of mainframe systems because of Y2K. This solution supports a lot of terminal emulators that communicate and connect to mainframe systems. That is one of its key advantages. Some automation tools provide only a fewer number of terminal emulators, but UFT One supports a lot of terminal emulators to communicate with mainframes.

If someone is new to test automation, we will typically propose UFT One.

OpenText recently started offering UFT One as a PaaS, which has been helpful for our customers.

I would rate this solution as a nine (out of 10).

We use UFT One for functional testing of business process automation. It includes all the modules, and there are different kinds of modules.  

The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent. 

The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile.

We have been using UFT One for six years.

UFT One is good performance-wise. It's stable and reliable.

UFT One is easy to scale, and there's no problem. Right now, we have fewer projects, so we're using it less. 

The deployment is simple overall, takes less than 30 minutes, and I can handle it on my own. However, there's one thing. We have a UFT developer add-in built into UFT One. It takes more time to install if you aren't an expert. I think that needs to be communicated. This add-in isn't required, and it can slow down your system. That needs to be communicated, so only the useful add-ins need to be covered. Sometimes if there is an issue, and we need a deeper dive with the logs, we might need to contact support.

UFT One has some competition from open-source solutions, so the license cost needs to be reasonable, and the demo periods need to be longer. Earlier, the demo period was 90 days, but it has been reduced to 60. 

If we want to cover the market, we need to consider free users, and the demo should be extended for some customers, so they can try the solution and get used to it. Then we can ask them to purchase a license for use.

I rate Micro Focus UFT One nine out of 10. I stop short of a perfect 10 because it has room for improvement with the installation and some add-ins. UFT One has good coverage of different environments and any Windows application or web application. It's like a record-and-play kind of thing. It has many features for that. 

OpenText UFT is a very good tool for testing purposes. We use it primarily for API testing.

This tool integrates well into our environment.

We have the ability to develop automatically for different countries when using continuous deployment. We can use the same scripts, which is a nice feature.

One of the most valuable features is the analysis using artificial intelligence.

This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain.

We can develop negative test cases for API calls, which is helpful.

One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement.

I have had problems with the parameterization chaining.

Given that there is a lot of competition in the market from similar tools, the price should be reduced.

There should be line numbers in the code.

I have been using UFT One for eight years in different organizations.

This is a stable solution that is made up of several different applications.

The scalability is good.

I have also used Selenium and I find that OpenText is better. It is easier, for example, to develop automation. Also, OpenText is easier to maintain than Selenium.

It is a straightforward product to implement.

This solution is quite costly and there is no free trial available. We purchased it from SAP because we got a cheaper price.

The subscription fees are paid annually.

My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it integrates well into your environment, is easy to use, easy to maintain, and makes your development efforts more efficient. The entire development chain, including smoke tests, will be improved.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for database and desktop application testing. We are customers of Micro Focus and I'm a senior software engineer. 

The stop automation is a great feature that is not generally supported by other solutions. 

I'd like to see reporting included in the solution, particularly test case-related reports.

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is 70-80%  stable. Stability really depends on the servers or the license which we have installed. If the license doesn't reach the server, there's less stability.

The solution is scalable. 

The setup process was somewhere in between straightforward and complex. The vendor carried out the implementation for us; it would have been helpful to have better documentation. The solution doesn't require maintenance but when the version changes and you have to reinstall there might be some work involved. We're not using the solution on a daily basis, just when we need it.

This is a great solution and I rate it eight out of 10. 

We use this product for our functional and automatic testing. I'm a senior test manager and we are customers of Micro Focus.

It's a fine solution with good out-of-the-box protocols. Right now we're moving to a new way of working so we're going to need to move away from this product. 

Improvement could be made in the cost of the solution and the support time involved in solving issues. This is something that is quite tricky. I try to get the support on a ticket, but it takes time for it to be managed. This part is always quite tedious and that's in addition to the renewal process for licensing. It's not managed very well by Micro Focus. We're looking into more open source products. 

I'd like to see a change in the programming language so that the product would support modern programming languages. It would improve agility which I believe the product needs. 

I've been using the solution for four years. 

Technical support could be improved. 

The implementation was carried out by the vendor but the rest was done either in-house or using third party providers. We carry out the maintenance using our admins. We're using the product intensively right now and we have around 80 or 90 users using it every day. 

The license model is quite complex. We have the normal basic license plus some support costs and other things so it depends on a lot of factors.

I'm not sure this solution is the future with many companies now moving to agility-focused solutions. I have used these products for the past 20 years and they were good and fast but now there are other competitors who are coming out with better solutions. 

I would rate this solution a six out of 10. 

It allows us to track projects from a defect management perspective so that we can learn from each project. A lot of our projects are repeatable, so using it with ALM, we can learn from the previous projects and determine which changes need to made for subsequent ones. Each time we have such a project, it goes faster than the previous. There are less issues with them each time because we've tracked the previous defects.

We've improved deploying in large environments on the client side. Desktop security has also improved as the feature functionalities of the installed client comes back to the the environment. Because we've improved the deployment, security has then also improved.

The amount of space it utilizes on the client side is quite excessive. A lot of users are offshore and they use VMs. The VM footprint is small, as opposed to a laptop or desktop used by someone onshore. But while the VM is small, the amount of space required for a standard install of UFT is 1.5GB. That's quite a lot and something that should be reduced when considering not all users have the additional amount of space for the install, particularly if they're on a VM.

UFT/QTP has been in place for probably about 10 years.

Once installed, it deploys without any issue.

UFT is extremely stable. We've never had any issues with it.

There's no block of scalability as it's a client application. It's managed centrally from a license-server perspective. Scalability can be as many installs as you want. From our perspective, the actual number of people that can use it concurrently is controlled by the license server, so there's no issues of scalability on that side.

We have the higher level, premium support. Technical support tends to be quick and reactive to issues and we don't have any major issues with it.

It was straightforward, but there were typical issues, such as the normal configuration issues that you can predict, or you have to configure it to talk to the license server.

My advice would be to research the full system requirements you need for the initial install. In corporate environments, once you've got it up and running, it's more difficult to get off of it. Also, plan to scale up based on projected CPU and space that you'll need to get.