OpenText UFT One Reviews

We use this solution to develop the framework for test automation. 

The solution is deployed on-premise.

There are about one hundred people using this solution in my organization. My company is offering services for automation. I have a team of 17 people who are constantly using the solution, and we're delivering the solution to my customers. We are a reseller and partner.

It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people.

The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java.

I have been using this solution since 2003.

It's stable.

It's scalable on the enterprise level. I have already scaled a project with UFT One at enterprise level. I'm using it because it is very scalable compared to open-source tools and many other tools on the market.

I have worked with the tool for a long time, so I haven't needed technical support often. But they were very helpful when I needed them.

It's extremely easy to set up.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10. 

The most important recommendation is to get trained before using this product. There isn't a lot of advanced information on the internet for free, so get trained first and then use the product at maximum capacity.

That we're able to test both the services, the API level and the GUI, across multiple technologies. At our company, we have everything from mainframe to modern web UI, and UFT allows us to test all of those sites.

I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well.

It helps improve efficiency in regression testing, specifically, and functional testing, in that we automate a lot of repeatable tasks. Not only do we use UFT for automated regression testing, we also use it for doing repeatable tests even for the business, in test environments and in the higher environments as well.

I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved.

I'd like to see more support for modern scripting languages. I believe they use .Net as their primary, and if we could use something like Java Script or Groovy, in addition, that would be helpful. I think that's possible with functional testing, a LeanFT, but I'd like to see more flexibility there eventually.

I would say that UFT has been around for a long time, so it is very stable. When we have had any issues, the support team has been able to help us.

We've got global licenses, so we use it on a world-wide scale, and so far it's been great. We even use it on virtualized servers, so it can scale just fine.

We actually have our tech support through a partner and work with them very closely. So far, so good. We haven't had a problem they couldn't resolve. We have yet to have an issue escalated to Micro Focus.

I was not involved in the initial setup. It was there when I got there. But I upgraded the licenses to a global license and we got both the full licenses and Run Time, so we're able to run it from continuous integration. That was

straightforward. Fairly easy.

When selecting a vendor to work with the most important criteria would be somebody that's going to be there for the long haul. Somebody who's dependable. Somebody who has active support and supports the latest technology. As we modernize it, the technology stays fresh.

If you have legacy tools like PowerBuilder and Oracle and a variety of others, not just web, then UFT is the best choice. If you're only doing web, you might be able to get away with some open source tools. But if you have a variety of technologies, UFT is great and you can also build your own keyword frameworks on top of that.

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.

We use this product for end-to-end testing, from order to cash.

The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement.

It works well for testing multiple end-to-end scenarios.

We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes.

In the next release, I would like to be able to see multiple scripts at the same time.

We have been using Micro Focus UFT One for several years, since before it was purchase and renamed from QTP.

We have had some issues with stability so I would rate it a solid five out of ten in that regard. Middle of the road.

The scalability is okay.

We have not yet contacted technical support, although there are areas where we need to. Our contract is set up such that we would not be contacting Micro Focus directly.

The initial setup was straightforward. It did not take long to deploy because there are only two departments using it right now. It is not company-wide.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to be aware that it lends itself to having coding knowledge. I would say that you have to be comfortable with coding to use it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It helps us consolidate our efforts. All of our projects are in there. We are also in the life science domain so we have many more compliance requirements which we have to adhere to. It has helped us automate our testing. We have also integrated it with our other tools such as JIRA and TFS. It's pretty good so far.

We look at service packs, what bugs they have and fixes. We just want to keep pace with where the industry is going, where the shift is in terms of quality assurance and requirement management. HP is very strong on the testing side, but in the last few years with the agile methodology it has lagged behind. It's slowly catching up and eventually it will get there, but we love the eco-system we're in and will continue to move forward.

It's stable

It's very scalable, a very robust kind of solution and we recommend it to anyone who's looking for a testing automation kind of tool.

We use an HPE partner for our support needs, but tickets do go to HPE eventually, level two, level three. We have never had an issue.

It's very straightforward.

UFT is a very mature product, but again, changes. This is a highly fast-paced, fast rolling field, and you have to keep up the pace with them. There are a lot of open source testers, and they do the job. UFT is a very capable tool compared to Selenium or other test tools available on the market. It can do the job is it cost effective? Investment is definitely on the higher side initially in terms of licensing cost.

The most valuable features of UFT to me are:

• UFT best supports automation of desktop based applications like AS400 apps, Java apps, SAP application, etc.
• UFT comes with built-in test frameworks like BPT. Using these frameworks test development can be started within no time.
• Lean FT provides the flexibility to the users to code in Java.
• UFT provides the flexibility to run the same tests against a variety of browsers like Chrome, Firefox and IE.

Manual execution of tests is always time consuming. With the help of UFT, the test execution time cycle was reduced from weeks to hours. This is essentially a giant leap. UFT framework enables to do easy and quick fixes to tests so that automation suite can still be run in case of changes in application. This feature is essentially very important for agile projects.

• Ability to run multiple Lean FT or UFT tests in parallel on the same machine.
• Lean FT to support desktop based applications as well.

I have been using HP UFT/QTP for the last 10 years.

There were no issues with the deployment.

UFT or Lean FT tests can only execute only one test on one machine. When the number of automation tests are very high, say 5000 to 10000, even with eight to 10 licenses, UFT can take over 24 hours for execution. This is unacceptable in agile projects. The regression test execution time is expected to be less than one hour for any agile project.

The customer service is prompt.

The technical support do not answer the questions to the point.

The initial set-up of UFT is quick and easy. The set-up instructions are straightforward and easy to understand. However, for a few applications such as AS400 and POS, the set-up requires a few installation steps to be followed in a specific sequence. If this is missed, then UFT may not recognize application objects at all.

I will always recommend setting up an in-house team with one test automation lead, one test automation architect and rest automation developers. However, if a vendor team offers a more cost effective solution, then the same team structure is to be implemented at their site.

For the QTP/UFT projects I have worked on ROI is always over 300% in the long term.

UFT offers a variety of licenses like seat licenses and concurrent licenses. If the automation team is small, say two to four, and fixed, node locked seat licenses would be preferable. Else, it is always advisable to go with concurrent licenses.

I have evaluated multiple paid and open source tools. I have evaluated paid tools like IBM Rational Functional Tester, TestComplete, Ranorex, Microsoft UI Automation, etc. Among these, HP UFT always tend to have better support for enterprise wide applications. However, if the requirement is to automate only a few applications, other tools can be considered. For web based application automation, Selenium WebDriver (open source) is the best automation tool.

It is always advisable to set the expectations right before starting any automation activity. Automation ROI is always negative for the first few months. The actual dividends of implementing automation will be reaped in the long term only. Also, automation is a continuous development/maintenance project same as application development. Without test maintenance, automated tests will not be useful in future.

It is simple to record new automated scripts with the products record function. It makes the process easier since the application converts the recording into code, which you can then alter and configure to your specification.

The process has helped my organization greatly reduce time and cost when it comes to testing a new project. We created automated generic scripts that can test more quickly and efficiently than manually testing.

The application can be buggy at times and takes up a lot of memory on your PC. Occasionally it can crash or not even start, which causes the user to restart their PC. It would be beneficial if it operated more smoothly and didn’t cause PC problems.

I have been using it for a year

Deployment was simple.

The stability of the product was questionable at times, but not enough to where it hindered our work.

It's scalability was very flexible.

Customer service was helpful and knowledgeable

I did not use any different solutions or evaluate any others. This product was determined by upper management.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy to load and you're allowed to select the specific plugins you need to use with your applications.

We implemented it in-house since it wasn’t a large-scale implementation. I don’t have much advice or implementation since it's straightforward.

I would say the most valuable is that we can get people started off really quickly on solutions because we've been partners with HPE for a long time and it helps us tailor the product to ours needs. When we have issues with something we can get support directly from HPE since we paid for it.

The fact that it works with a vast number of technologies works for us because our internal customers use the tool for testing a lot of different applications. That's probably the best feature that it has for us.

There's a lot of centralized testing from some perspectives and our main goal is to provide for a bunch of different groups at a lower cost so we centralize licensing and distribute it to various people. The biggest benefit of that is that it allows us to empower the people that need the solutions instead of manually having them develop the solutions on their own.

In the past three years it's become a lot more stable. Prior to that, we saw a lot of issues with stability and a lot of patching and concern from our internal customers that they couldn't rely on the tool to always be there when they needed it.

We don't scale it out on as large of a basis as ALM.

Our biggest issue was in the switch over from HP Inc. to HPE. I think we had some trouble getting in touch with higher level support so we spent a lot of time going through basic support where the people that work with the tools have a lot of experience with the tools. We think that it would be better if we could bypass the lowest levels of support on some issues. I can understand the process that we usually have to go through but more recently our reps have been helpful in getting us to the people that we need quicker so we can get a resolution.

Over the years, it's really gotten a lot better. The patches come out a lot more frequently now. It supports the technologies we need. HPE is currently working with us to expand the support in an area that it doesn't currently have. I guess I wouldn't go any higher than that because it's been a long time coming for it to get to that point.