OpenText UFT One Reviews

We are currently using it for migration.

Micro Focus UFT One is useful. However, there is an issue with the scripts. We are going to collaborate with multiple automatic specialists to identify the problem. If we can fix the issue, we will continue with UFT, otherwise, we'll switch to other automation tools.

The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great.

The solution does not have proper scripting, which impacts the solution. We are currently deciding whether we want to keep the UFT and will decide by the end of December. We paid a lot of money for the UFT, and we will only drop it as a last option.

We have been using this solution for four years. It is deployed in the client-server application with SAP.

The performance is not great, which is why we are currently conducting a review.

The solution is very scalable for a UFT. We have more than ten people using this solution.

There is a gap in technical support which is also part of our review. We've raised issues in the past, which have not been fixed in two years.

We used QTP and LoadRunner in the past.

Our deployment was completed in-house, and we have an in-house software development and architecture team. We do all our products and services and also provide services to third parties.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. Micro Focus UFT One is outstanding. All HP processes are excellent. I used to use HP Test Director, HP QC and HP ALM. So I am confident that Micro Focus UFT One is useful.

I am a consultant in my organization and one of the tasks that I perform is to assist other users with technical issues. Specifically, with UFT One, I am currently evaluating the AI features. I want to experiment with them and find out how it all works so that we can take that information to our customers.

The fact that UFT One covers multiple technologies helps in terms of end-to-end scenarios. When we have process flows, workflows, or scenarios that span multiple technologies, we don't have to branch out and use multiple tools. This is very helpful.

The platform supports both API and GUI usage, although we have only used it for GUI.

The continuous testing across the software lifecycle is good. When we have done continuous testing, we connect to remote machines and execute the tool. The only problem that we encountered was that when the system is not visible, or not logged in, then there were some issues. However, it has been several months since we tried this.

We have not really put the AI capabilities into practice yet because it is currently only applicable for web-based applications. Our customers have pre-existing tools that already perform this work.

In general, UFT has helped to reduce our test execution time. In particular, with our non-web ecosystem, the execution time has been reduced considerably.

At this point, UFT has not helped us to decrease defects because we are not creating new test cases. Rather, we are automating test cases with it. It might be the case for regression testing, as regression defects are much higher. 

We also use UFT One for SAP test scenarios.

I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications. For browser applications, we have a good number of non-commercial alternatives. However, for thick clients, whether they are Java, Mainframe, SAP, or .NET, this solution works pretty well.

The introduction of artificial intelligence in UFT is a step in the right direction.

The UFT automated manual process has helped to increase our test coverage. Not every one of the tools is applicable but there are some provisions in the latest version that can increase the testing coverage.

We perform some of our tests in virtual machines and UFT gives us control over the machine configuration, such as allocating specific resources. That said, we have our virtual machines configured by another team before they are provided to us, so we don't have UFT control them.

The AI functionality has a lot of room for improvement, as it has just started. For example, when a particular object is found, you have to scroll down, rather than have it done automatically.

The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well.

I have been using Micro Focus UFT One for between six months and one year. More generally, I have used UFT for approximately 12 years.

The stability is pretty good with respect to the traditional functionality, which has been existing for years. Some of the new features might not be as stable. In particular, there is a little bit of instability with the AI features that I have observed. I think that this is acceptable given that it is new.

This product is scalable in some regards and not others. 

As for extending the execution of tests to other machines, you have to install UFT on every machine and get it started, which may not be very scalable. However, it is scalable in terms of generally extending coverage to other applications. Essentially, once you start automating an application, you can continue to build on that as new requirements or scenarios come in.

I have not personally dealt with customer support, although when I was helping one of our customer teams, there was a problem that I could not resolve and I asked them to raise a ticket. Unfortunately, the issue was not resolved. I was told that the answer from the Micro Focus support team was not helpful.

Five or six years ago, I did deal with UFT support, but it was not for the UFT One product.

I have interacted with the Micro Focus design team, giving my input as to how AI is important. I was told that it's going to be available in upcoming releases.

I have used other tools including Tricentis Tosca, and I find that one, in particular, to be better for testing web-based applications. There are other tools including TestComplete, but I would recommend UFT One for non-web applications.

Tricentis Tosca is nice because it is a scriptless tool, you don't need to know scripting in order to get it to work. It is more UI-based and a new person can usually do well with it, and there is not much of a learning curve. This is in contrast to UFT One, where you need to know the scripting language in order to automate tests.

I assist our clients in setting up their operations, such as helping to identify objects or setting up the scripting. However, I do not help with the actual deployment.

In the past, UFT One did not support integration with third-party applications such as Jenkins and Bamboo. However, there are now some plugins that are available.

My advice for others who are considering this product is that they are looking to automate non-web applications, then it is a good choice. For web-based applications, I would recommend another tool, such as Tricentis Tosca.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation.

It's improved the way our organization functions by automating test cases that were previously done manually. It also improved the robustness and execution time of these test cases.

It doesn’t support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this. It's also quite an expensive solution.

We've been using it for one year in my project.

We've had no issues with deployment.

It's been stable for us.

No issues with scalability.

8/10

8/10

I've used UFT for many years as this tool is the most user-friendly solution for automating tests.

The initial setup was a straightforward, step-by-step process.

Our in-house admin team implemented it.

It's an expensive solution.

This tool is awesome for automation even though it is expensive.

UFT One is great for recording and automating test cases.

The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner.

One area for improvement is its occasional slowness.

I have been working with OpenText UFT One for a long time.

UFT One was generally stable and didn't have significant downtime or performance issues. The only notable drawback was its slower performance during certain tasks.

UFT One itself appeared to be fairly scalable, as it generally runs one test at a time. However, it can be integrated into LoadRunner for combined testing, although I haven't delved deeply into that aspect.

The installation and setup of UFT One were relatively easy. I had to install it on my computer, and the only requirement was access to a license server. Overall, it wasn't a complex installation process. The deployment took about an hour.

I would recommend UFT One to those considering its use. It is straightforward to set up, especially with the AI capabilities, although it can be slow at times. Despite the occasional slowness, it is much easier to use now compared to earlier versions and can save a significant amount of time compared to manual functional testing. Overall, I would rate the solution as a nine out of ten.

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.

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.

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.

I recently took became a QA for our company and was trained on various tools including the solution as part of job orientation. 

We have 100 engineers in our company who use the solution for automation testing. 

It is very easy to create shared repositories that can be used throughout all testing. This feature makes our jobs easier. 

The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute.

The solution's size could be improved because it takes up a lot of space. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

There was one issue so support was emailed for assistance. I am not sure of support's response because it was handled by our unit manager.

The setup process could be improved because reinstallation is required if you miss an add-in during initial setup. It would be beneficial to have an installation outline or information about selecting add-ins. 

Deployment is quick and takes only a couple of minutes. 

Technical support from Edgewood guided us through the initial setup and installation. 

One in-house engineer can handle ongoing maintenance. 

Our engineers were also were trained on and use TestComplete. 

I like the direction the solution is heading and am really happy with how they keep adding new features. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.