OpenText UFT One Reviews

The GUI automation, mobile testing, UFT, and the application lifecycle management features are the most valuable for my projects.

This product has increased productivity and quality of testing. It has also reduced manual efforts for performing Regression and Sanity for every new build.

There is also better evaluation and analysis of defects using UFT integrated with ALM.

I would like to see them remove the shortcoming of working with .NET applications, as there is not much support provided for automating applications developed on .NET.

I would also like to see HP increase the trial period for UFT so that people can learn it by giving them more time. They can then practice more and more to increase their knowledge.

Finally, by providing mobile add-in and an API testing add-in to the trial version, they can help people to grow in this field in a better way.

I have used this for more than five years.

I have faced some issues while running automation scripts. Sometimes loop variable named as “i” do not actually perform its functionality. By changing the variable name the purpose is resolved. The stability of test scripts running is not very good when we change the names of actions.

9/10 - the team provides solutions as soon as possible through email.

9/10 - the team provides solutions as soon as possible through email.

I was using Selenium with Java to do automation, but as Selenium could not help me do Windows based application automation, I switched to UFT as a new solution.

The initial step for me was straightforward as I have good technical skills. Therefore, it was easy for me to learn VB scripting and start preparing frameworks for UFT.

I was working in a service-based company as an automation developer. I have implemented all types of frameworks in the banking sector on which I was working.

The return on investment for any company buying this product license is 100 percent, as businesses with clients increase productivity when manual tasks becomes faster and efficient by automating them with this tool.

Once the license is purchased, this tool can be used for automating many applications, and can be used by any automation developer working in an organization that has purchased this licensed tool.

This product can be used for automation of websites, windows application, mobile testing and API (Application Programming Interface) test automation.

People who wanted to reduce their efforts for repetitive task can use this product to automate manual tests. This helps increase the reliability and quality of testing.

The features I've found most valuable are--

• API
• GUI

We have performed 3500 test case automations, and we are able to execute them in just five days. If we were to do this manually, it would take 30 days.

Cross-browser testing feature should be improved.

They should also develop a generic framework so everyone can use it who purchases it.

Also, the browser shrinks while running GUI test cases, and UFT hangs while debugging.

I've been using it for a year.

HP UFT consumes too much RAM, so the system gets hung.

It's 90%.

Initially, we started doing automation using Selenium, but we could not succeed with it, so we migrated from Selenium to HP UFT. We now have a successful solution.

We faced a lot of problems during implementations, such as objection identification and cross-browser functionalities.

We implemented with our in-house team.

The ROI is good.

The cost of the HP UFT license is more.

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.

• Object recognition
• Bulk-object capture: automatically builds data tables in order
• VBScript & C# & Java
• Industry- and market-leading functional test tool

It has reduced time-to-market regression from 160+ hours to 12 hours.

I’d like to see them improve the number of objects recognized without customization, similar to TestComplete by SmartBear. Simply put: It would save test development time, which would reduce time-to-market.

I have used it for eight years.

I did not encounter any deployment issues.

I did not encounter any stability issues.

I did not encounter any scalability issues when it was properly integrated with remote execution controls.

I rate customer service 9/10.

I rate technical support 9/10.

We previously used WinRunner and switched due to ease of implementation.

Setup was easy and straightforward.

An in-house team implemented it.

Have a look at the HP UFT pricing model; it’s changed.

We also evaluated Smart Bear’s TestComplete.

It is a great alternative, and has outstanding object recognition & functionality.

License cost, ease of implementation, expandability, extensibility, reusability, availability of useful code and knowledge are some of the reasons to consider switching.

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 used almost all the features. To me, the the most valuable features were the OR and code compiler (VB script) to call the framework.

I worked for Weight Watchers on a diabetes product which had three main modules -- signup, questionnaire, and calendar.

The manual resource was created for eight users for full processing, but after I generated the script, I did the full process for the same test cases for up to 100 users.

• Spy elements
• OR

I used it from February to December 2014.

No issues encountered.

When I ran the script for two or three times sequentially, the tool hung and wouldn’t respond.

There were issues with browsers when supporting more elements such as CSS and HTML.

8/10 - because they have good technical knowledge and the response is really fast.

I connected with technical support only a few times, so it is not fair for me to rate them. But for the few times I did, it is 8/10.

I did, and I switched because the newer tools have many features and many options such as browser support, responsive design, and is faster. However, there are free and open source tools.

It was straightforward.

It was done through a vendor team who were mid-level in experience.

The license is expensive.

I came to the company and they were using the tool, but there were other options for them choose to choose from such as Selenium and Node.js.

You need to improve the support browsers and responsive design, and try to use newer and better languages (JS).

Also, check the stability of your product(s) when you run a lot of scripts.

They should reduce the price.

With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources. It has allowed us to focus on newly added features.

• Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users.
• Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test.

Initially, it was supporting only Internet Explorer. This was not an issue, as the corporate choice, was to use that browser. In the meantime, Firefox and Google Chrome became popular and were introduced within the company, hence scripting became more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support those additional browsers.

This was long time ago, with version 8.2. It was automation of a pack of regression set with QTP. It was a success because my customer split regression testing and functional testing. Therefore, I could focus on the part which was identical across versions, then maintain the scripts after new features were introduced over releases.

UFT provides us with solid automation for our test cases.

Its ease of use means we've been able to ramp up non-technical users and have them understand how to do general debugging very easily.

Tighter integration between ALM and UFT, especially from a reporting perspective, for automation reporting. There's good integration in my opinion, but it just needs to be a little more rock solid.

We've been using it for around three and a half years.

For the most part UFT has been pretty good. Getting it to interact with ALM nicely has been a challenge for us sometimes.

It's been able to scale to our needs.

Good, sometimes a little slow, but overall pretty good.

We didn't have any other solution in place, and needed to have a much better solution than doing testing with Excel files.

It's straightforward.

HPE was one of the very few vendors that we actually had on the list. We went with HPE because my boss actually was very familiar with the product, and felt it fits our organizations needs extremely well.

Give it a shot, if you take the time to invest in it, it works.