OpenText UFT One Reviews

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. 

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.

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.

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.

The most valuable aspects to me are its versatility and how powerful it is with all the add-ins for so many different platforms.

I love working with database testing with the tool. I also love how UFT can run functional tests on the UI, then execute tests against a web or REST service, then it can use data from the database to test against the front end, and it can finish the test run by kicking off performance testing for the same application.

And all of that can be done from the QC/ALM tool so defects can be linked back to requirements and test cycles.

We do consulting, training and mentoring with the HP tool set, including UFT, so it is kind of our bread and butter. There are a lot of options with the tool. We just finished implementing an automation framework with over 600 tests using UFT.

Last week, I mentored another customer in how to use the tool with their team so they can start automating their tests.

We use it in a lot of different ways. I used it to build a script that automatically checks me in if I have a flight with Southwest to help me get a better boarding group, so it helps with my travel too.

The product is so robust by itself, testing both GUI and backend processes in conjunction with other tools like Loadrunner and ALM. The UFT tool can be such a huge boon to a testing organization that can commit to its use. Over time there is so much testing that can be taken off of the manual testers hands, allowing them to focus on the more complex testing issues.

Those areas I would have spoken of before are being addressed. HP added the LeanFT functionality for UFT 12.51 so users can build tests using Java or C# or other programming languages they might be comfortable with.

I would, however, like to see the application have fewer issues with crashes.

I've used it for over eight years.

That is one of the good things about the UFT tool. It is a mature product from a mature company, so while there are issues from time to time with installations, the tool usually deploys without issue.

Stability can be an issue, and the weaker the resources on the machine running UFT the more likely there will be problems.

Scalability is not an issue as long as an organization can afford the licenses.

Partners who offer support like our company tend to get high marks for that support. HP support is notoriously difficult.

Over the course of my career, I used Rational Robot back before IBM bought them and Silk Test as well as Silk Performer when Segue owned them both. All good tools, but not a fair comparison since I used them so long ago. I will say I loved working with Silk Performer.

There is a wizard for the set-up which I have always found to be simple and straightforward. That same wizard can be used to set up the license server, repair installations, install some add-ins, and some other features. It has always seemed pretty intuitive to me in terms of setting up QTP and UFT.

We generally will implement IR in-house, but then again we train and mentor folks on using these products, so that makes a certain amount of sense.

Read the install notes before you start and make sure your target system meets all the requirements. So often folks call for support when really it was a matter of not reading the installation documentation.

Well, ROI will be specific to a customer and their needs, but I can give an example.

We built automation for a company that needed 17 people for 12 or more weeks to run a regression test. That same test can be run in a week with the UFT tool and one or maybe two people to make sure there are no problems with those test runs. I built automation that created test sets, executed tests with those sets, and validated the results for a testing effort that took three people two or more weeks.

Given all that, ROI is really what automation is all about.

Get training. Being self-taught will leave a lot of frustrating holes that training fills. You can have really bright people but they just won’t know how to use some of the features of the tool because they won’t know those features exist. As a result they can grow frustrated and mistake their lack of knowledge for shortcomings in the product.

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.

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.

It allows me to perform all in one place--

• Regression tests (tests which check that the existing functionality of an application still works as it should after other parts of the application have been modified),
• Functional tests (to verify a specific action or function of code), and
• Service testing (automated testing protocol)

I was able to reduce regression and functional test times by 80%.

It could be improved with greater browser compatibility and more frequent updates.

Also, running a simple test is straightforward, but creating a framework that can be reused across other tests is complex and time consuming.

I've used it for three to four years.

I didn't encounter any issues with deployment.

When debugging code in UFT, it would crash, freeze and hang a lot.

We had no issues with scalability.

6/10

8/10

We previously used Selenium Webdriver.

We implemented it with our in-house team.

HP UFT cost a lot and there are other free tools that can do the same and much more.

I joined the company after the decision was made to use HP UFT.

If cost is not an issue, then UFT can be considered. There are other tools on the market that can do the same for less.