OpenText UFT One Reviews

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.

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.

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.

The most valuable feature for me is API Tests for SOAP automation testing.

With HP UFT, we're able to synchronize with HP Quality Center, and API automation tests can be placed into test suites and run automatically through the HP Quality Center scheduler. Results for the tests are set and HP Quality Center is able to report on the test results. Emails can then be sent to notify anyone of the results in real time.

There are scenarios where the tool freezes and locks the user out. Re-opening the tool puts test results in a locked state, making the test read-only. The only way to unlock the test is to have an administrator force close the user’s last login.

Calling GUI tests within an API test or vice versa results in difficult, confusing scenarios on how to update tests properly when it comes to parameters and actions. Most of the time, it is easier to close the tests, open them one at a time, and perform the actions needed before calling the tests together.

I've used it for two years.

The only time I encountered tool issues was when the servers to our ALM database was down.

I personally have never had to deal with customer service or technical support. We have an administrator assigned to that task.

SOAPUI Pro and ReadyAPI were used for API testing. HP UFT was used in conjunction when automation needed to be set up. With the synchronization with HP Quality Center, HP UFT saved time.

I was not a part of the initial set up. Installing the tool on my machine was straightforward based on my company’s instructions.

My company is very firefighting friendly, so the ROI was immense when it came to automation and the amount of time it took to get test suites and regression set up. The amount of test cases a user can create in a short amount of time is incredible.

The ROI is variable depending on the size of the team, the amount of usage they plan on using the tool, and the budget they have on tools, training, and support.

I do not know the exact numbers my company paid for the licenses, but from what I heard on the grapevine, only seat licenses were bought when absolutely necessary and floating licenses were bought for everything else.

I have been running UFT scripts also, apart from the laptops and PC's. We primarily use the solution for end-to-end and functional testing and also for web applications and tunnel-based applications in the testing chain. It's one of the positive points of UFT that UFT can handle both.

I'm just managing the team, so I can only explain my experience via the experiences that I've heard from our team members. One of the aspects that the team really liked was the fact that you can also use the business process testing. 

If you take a look at BPT, the Business Process Testing part of UFT, it's also a step forward for making components. You can combine the components without diving into the code. That's a good thing.

The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high.

The problem with the solution is that you need to have highly specialized skills in order to make the scripts. Also, the scripts that you're developing for less scripted scenarios should be more productive.

The product needs to be simplified overall. They should look to competitors for ways to make things easier and less complex. It would give them a better market position. For example, they need to make it easier to compose a guest case and combine their modules and then create a test case from combining the modules together rather than scripting. 

If they simplify the product and work with building blocks, users won't need to do all the scripts.

The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients.

I'm an independent contractor and I have used the UFT for about two years.

The stability has been good. It's quite reliable. We haven't seen bugs or glitches. It hasn't crashed in any way.

I'm not very involved in the technical part of setting up the solution. There's a specialized team that does the setup. There's another team using the setup and monitoring everything. Whenever there are some problems within the setup, I can refer to another team that can deal with issues.

My understanding is the setup requires some technical work, so those setting it up should be a bit knowledgeable.

Our team has also handled automation.

Due to the fact that the solution was in the organization before I began working with the company, I'm not sure how long deployment took.

The licensing costs are quite high. 

The more you do automation, the more you spend on the license cost. Due to that, sometimes when there is a boom in spending, you will need to justify the extra cost.

We're curious to learn more about Tosca. I've heard also from others that Eggplant is quite good. I've wanted to know more about them for my own research and have been looking at them.

I just use the product as an independent contractor and customer. I don't have a professional relationship with OpenText.

I can recommend the product. If you're a company that is working with any legacy systems, and you need automation with both web-based applications and terminal-based applications. the solution would be a good thing to use.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall. I would rate it higher, however, there is a steep learning curve. You also need to be skilled in using the solution. Why learn such a specific program when there are other products, available as well? When there's such a steep learning curve, it might not make sense for every company. 

To build an enterprise framework for functional automation with CI/CD features, automate all the standalone applications, and test applications in the cloud.

We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution.

Supporting Windows applications and many other applications, like PeopleSoft and PowerBuilder applications.

Integrating with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation). 

I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications.

The most valuable feature is the automation of the tests. That saves us a lot of time, especially during the regression tests.

The regression tests run must faster than if you do it manually. It's assured that the tests are always done the same way. If you run these tests manually, the click behavior might be different or there may be errors during the test. These issues are excluded when you automate it. This tool keeps it consistent.

Another benefit is that these tests can be triggered directly from ALM. In ALM, we have test plans and then we execute the tests. That's pretty cool.

I would like to see the integration into HPE ALM Octane. I don't know if this is more on the UFT side or on the Octane side, but as a customer, I don't really care. I just want it to work in a manner in which we could use Octane for the HA projects in the same way, more or less, that we use ALM so far in the normal, old projects.

The stability is okay. We don't have problems so far. We had some issues in the past, but during the last month, we haven't had any issues with the stability.

The scalability is good, although it’s not without its problems.

We have a named support engineer for UFT because we have quite a big platform. We provide this as a solution and therefore the service has to be available. That's the reason why we have a named support agent. It works pretty well. We’ve been satisfied with the agent.

About 10 years ago, we had Silk Test. We already had UFT when it was either a Microsoft or a Mercury product. We bought it at that time when it wasn't HPE, and we worked with this product for several years.

It isn’t fair to compare this solution to Silk Test. Even at that early time, UFT was way better and easier to handle, easier to program, and the license management was easier. In the meantime, we didn't compare the products anymore because UFT is fulfilling our needs and the support is okay so there is no reason for us to change.

I wasn’t involved in the installation, but it worked. It wasn't a big hassle.

I would suggest just taking a look at this solution and trying it. It's pretty easy to get in touch with and to have your first success with it. You will then like it and step deeper into it.

We have multiple SAP systems and clients. UFT allows us to use one set of tests for all systems.

We are a worldwide organization with a complex financial authorization matrix. When changes were made to this matrix, we provided automated test scripts. More than 20,000 tests were executed in 1 week.

The current version is sufficient for our purposes at the moment. There were, however, some issues with deployment and the integration into Solution Manager.

We've been using it for three years. Our primary system is SAP and we use UFT through SAP Solution Manager as a third-party testing tool.

Again, we had issues with deployment and the integration into Solution Manager. These are mostly resolved and the current situation is stable.

There were no issues with the stability.

There were no issues with the scalability.

We do not have a direct support contract with HP. Our license is through SAP. Customer support is 10/10 for HP and 8/10 for SAP, but improving.

This is my first involvement with automated testing software.

The initial set up was straightforward once we cleared up some communication issues. The first end-to-end automated test was functional within a week.

We implemented it through a SAP team, but now manage all maintenance and upgrades internally.

The license for this product is provided through our support contract with SAP. Any other product would incur additional license costs.

My only experience is with the product fully integrated with SAP. We are not licensed to use this as a standalone product we must connect to SAP.