OpenText UFT One Reviews

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.

Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier. We have a lot of repeatable tasks which we perform over at the hotel, rolling dates for different applications mainly. We do monthly swap testing or regression testing for every month's window batches and so on. That's mainly what we use it for.

It's definitely cut down on a lot of time by using this application. We have about ten environments; ten times in every environment manually would've taken most of the day, rather than doing it simultaneously. It saves me hours.

Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification. So, if there's more coverage for different languages to detect in development, then that'd be a lot more helpful. Specifically this application which we use is Delphi-oriented, but I had a hard time trying to figure out what was going on with the application because of the language.

I'd say it's a very stable application. I'm still kind of learning UFT, so, it varies by application. I run into issues sometimes with object identification, but, other than that, it's a pretty solid application.

Right now, we're using it more for some of my smaller tasks, but eventually I'd like to grow it, at least in our QA department, towards more applications.

Their tech support is good. They respond in a reasonable amount of time. They definitely keep contacting you until the problem is resolved.

To someone researching UFT: It's a very good tool. It hits other applications versus just web apps, which is one of the main things. I think that is why our company purchased it in the first place.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: What they're currently doing, then what their outlook is, e.g., what they plan on doing to their products and how they're going to innovate them. Then just kind of base the decision off of what other companies (in the same vertical) are currently using or if they like the same products.

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.

The integration with the third party products. Whether it's the mobile products or others, it is really helpful. Additionally, the HPE mobile solution integration that it provides is really helpful. Open source tools like Selenium and APM don't have easy integration into other mobile solutions.

A key benefit, obviously, is in terms of effort savings that we have achieved using UFT. We have used it for different projects across different business units within the enterprise. That's really the key for UFT.

It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari. That's a very key requirement for my organization.

I's pretty stable but obviously it has many issues that come up, especially during test automation for which you don't have a direct or easy solution. Then you have to go back to the product team or to forums and analyze it. I think HPE should look into these areas.

UFT is pretty much scalable in terms of Windows desktop and mobile platforms; but when it comes to Mac, it only supports Safari. I want it to support Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Mac. If UFT can't provide that, then at least LeanFT should provide that support. I believe it's in the roadmap but it will take a lot of time.

6-7/10 as there have been at least a couple of examples where it took a lot of time because we have to go back and forward with the product team and then to other teams within HPE. By the time we resolve the issue, it usually takes a lot of time. That was the observation, at least for a couple of key examples. Then we also had to put a lot of effort in. We finally got it resolved but I think if they could speed up the process.

We have been using it for a long time, since it was called QTP.

The complexity was pretty much okay, it's acceptable, so that was good. Once you implement the infrastructure within the organization, the complexity is pretty much similar to any other automation tool.

Definitely use UFT because it's a proven solution. You can at least use it for Windows desktop, or if you have mobile solutions whether it's HPE or any other mobile solutions which UFT integrates with that, it's a beautiful solution, although it has inherent problems, but you can work with that along with the HPE team.

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.

I've found the most valuable feature to be the ease of object identification using the products spy tool.

As with any test automation tool, the ability to run repeatable tests unattended during off hours saves lots of manual testing hours.

I would like to see IDE improvements (collapsible code, being able to open multiple test files simultaneously, having stack trace information). Some of these IDE features have been addressed in the more recent versions.

The solution works for the most part, but the IDE is horrible (although I hear version 12 has a revamped IDE and is much better) and as a result of VBScript being the language, there is no stack trace information available so debugging some errors is not an easy task.

I would like to also see support for other languages than just VBS. Java, Full VB, C#, etc.

I've used it for three years.

The application will occasionally crash or be unable to reach the License Server which causes test suites to fail.

The tech support is pretty good. Compared to Micro Focus’s SilkTest, it is much better. Although I haven’t used SilkTest in about 5 years so it may have improved.

I was not involved in the evaluation of this product. I inherited it.

I don’t really have information on the pricing/licensing as I wasn’t involved in that and wouldn’t be able to comment on the ROI. This solution has been in place for about five years and the tests are pretty reliable so I would think it has a pretty good ROI, but just guessing.

This solution probably wouldn't be my first choice. I have used Silk Test and Selenium. Selenium would probably be my first choice due to the high ROI, reliability, being able to have a IDE choice and support of multiple languages.

Its ease-of-use. It doesn’t take long to train staff on it. We use a third-party to develop the scripts for us, and they find it easy to up-skill staff to use UFT.

We use it mainly for regression and it's very useful for that. We reduce a lot of stats around cost savings in the regression packs that we run.

Cost is one area where there is room for improvement. We have to start looking at a leaner team and moving into using the Selenium scripts. We have a lot of areas using Selenium, as well, within the bank. I'm trying to get out of using it, only just for regression, as well.

We don’t have any stability issues at the moment. Some of the issues that we've had really would be around browsers and browser compatibility. But that's mainly to do with in-house issues, because the industry that I'm in can be a bit slow to adapt new browsers and new software. It's more the way that it interacts with that, than the application itself that causes stability problems.

We have 12 licenses at the moment. Cost is one factor that pushes us to use another tool as well.

I would have been involved in the initial setup when it was originally installed. It was too long ago. It was originally QTP. That was a good few years ago. I used to look after the licensing, and the license servers, and all that kind of stuff and that's fine. It is very, very simple. The new licensing model is a lot easier.

Our environment is web-based, with over 2000 pages. There is no such thing as a primary use case since it is such a large and easily modifiable product. We have more than 1700 test cases already.

UFT has improved our ability to regression test. This frees up the test team to work on only the new portions of the software without having to worry that we are introducing new errors in other areas without knowing it.

The function library has made automation a much easier process since we do not use record and playback. Our scripts create data and then manipulate the data that has been created.

It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS.

We have been using OpenText UFT for seven years.