OpenText UFT One Reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.