What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus UFT One?

I would recommend the solution as it's one of the best tools in the market. I'd rate it seven out of ten. To make the solution a ten out of ten, it could be more user-friendly.

UFT One is a very strong tool for automating testing and improving application quality. I'd rate the solution nienout of ten.

The solution's cross-browser and multi-platform testing capabilities positively impact my testing efficiency because I don't have to change the tool. I'm using the cross-browser capability in old tools. It's even better if I use a printer with cross-browser functionality in manual testing. I can switch from one tool to another quite quickly. It's not only UFT; it's an integrated platform. I integrate all the products easily. I know the entire architecture and integration, and I only work based on integration. Most people do not understand that various tools like OpenText UFT One, LoadRunner, or Quality Center are integrated and work together. If you want to apply the entire methodology described in the International Standardization Organization standards, you have to think of these tools as a whole, not separately. Most customers make the mistake of considering them separate items, especially when discussing pricing. These tools are powerful when they are integrated and work together. Otherwise, there are many variations in the market. I primarily work with OpenText and recommend their products. If the customer wants another product, like Selenium, based on price or their agreed-upon internal matrix of tools, I have to work with Selenium. Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

The impact of implementing OpenText UFT One in our testing strategy has been somewhat conservative. It depends on how automation tools are utilized within the organization. Our approach has been quite planned, but overall, automation efforts haven't increased. The main differences between OpenText UFT One and other functional testing tools are features like record, playback, and the object repository. I rate it an eight out of ten.

Speaking about how the tool is used in our company for automated functional and regression testing, I would say that OpenText UFT One is used for regression testing. The tool's level of regressions is used for system tests, SITS, and some UFT regression tests as well. The issue we face in our company is when we migrate or consolidate data on some of the platforms since we have to rewrite some of the scripts. Owing to the aforementioned issue my company faces with the tool, we are looking for a way to see how we can automatically change, migrate, or consolidate data on another platform. My company is looking at some of the performance testing tools in the market. My company looks at the products in the market separately based on the different tests for which we require them so that there is not much of an overlap of functionalities in different tools for the test cases. My company wants to also look into solutions that can provide all the functionalities in one product. The other non-functional testing areas, like monitoring and integration capabilities with ServiceNow and other tools, can also be tested. Our company has an architecture team that looks into the product that we use, after which the team puts forth some options for us, but the head of the testing team and testing SMEs carries out the evaluation process. I don't have hands-on experience in the aforementioned area. Considering the last three years, there has been a good level of satisfaction from the use of the product that our company has experienced. The testing teams in our company did not complain about OpenText UFT One. There were some issues in terms of the development phase since our company could not roll it out to the DevOps team as the developers couldn't pick up the product easily. I rate the overall tool a seven out of ten.

I would recommend UFT One to those considering its use. It is straightforward to set up, especially with the AI capabilities, although it can be slow at times. Despite the occasional slowness, it is much easier to use now compared to earlier versions and can save a significant amount of time compared to manual functional testing. Overall, I would rate the solution as a nine out of ten.

I will recommend the solution for its accuracy, speed, scalability, and UI. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

The solution is easy to integrate and adapt for manual testing. It manages tests very well. It is an excellent tool in terms of customization. I rate it as a nine.

I advise others to speak with automation engineers to know the success criteria for the solution's proof of concept. Moreover, UFT needs to give insights on production status like Worksoft or Tricentis. Thus, I rate it as a seven.

We are an end-user. Micro Focus and SAP don't seem to have the same relationship that they had previously, so we are leaning more toward Tosca, which also has the benefit of offering less scripting. It's a good tool. You need to invest some time in getting it implemented. However, we are happy with it. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. The functionality is good. It covers the entire range of tests; however, from a business perspective, we wanted something more user-friendly.

I would recommend this solution for those who do repetitive activities in testing. I rate Micro Focus UFT One a nine out of ten.

I give the solution a nine out of ten. I recommend Micro Focus UFT One to others.

I would rate the solution as eight out of ten. I would recommend this solution for those who are looking into implementing it.

I'm an end-user. Currently, there is a 2022 version. For a couple of reasons, we've switched back to the 2021 release. We thought that we found an error in some strange special scenarios. It's extremely useful for us with a little bit of potential to become better here and there. I would give the product an overall rating of eight out of ten.

My advice would be for the company to assess its needs. UFT works best in a company that is using many different applications. For example, if your company uses different Browsers (i.e. Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and IE). Furthermore, consider if your company does more than just Web testing. For example if your company uses Terminal Emulators, .NET, stand alone Java applications, requires database testing, and also API Testing, then UFT is a good choice. Furthermore, because the test reporter is built in UFT is a good choice for storing test results that may be need for future historical evidence in case of an external audit. Additionally, UFT works extremely well in automating Microsoft products such as Excel, Word, Outlook, and SharePoint. All of facts should be considered when considering if UFT is right for your company’s needs.

The ability of the solution to cover multiple enterprise apps, technologies, and environments is very important to us and it forms part of our company policy. It is a point we had to validate before going with this solution. The reason for this is that we must meet the technical needs of our customers, many of whom lack a technical background. UFT One provides cross-browser and desktop application support, although the cross platform support, which is not good, is not so important to us at the moment. These capabilities are important to us because our customers are using different kinds of technologies, some that are newer, some that are very old, and all kinds that are in between. To provide a good solution, the cross-browser and cross-platform functionalities are very helpful and necessary. UFT One gives us integration capabilities with the API and GUI components, which is very important to us since we must occasionally alternate between the two. We can use the API to make calls through scripts, so we don’t have to use the GUI for UFT One. That’s why it’s important for us to have the REST API. We can run the solution on virtual machines. This greatly affects our ability to control machine configuration and allocate appropriate resources for testing. We wouldn't be able to conduct tests or to carry out work without this solution. This is both very helpful and useful and we consider this a necessity. We have 100 percent usage of UFT on virtual machines -- All our instances are running on them. This allows us to help the customer access his application under test. The customer can configure the system with permissions and the like. All these points are, in some cases, not possible on hardware in our company, because of political restrictions, security reasons, et cetera. The solution has allowed us to reduce test execution time. If we use it in continuous integration or in headless mode, it improves performance. Between the normal run mode with debugging, and the fast mode in Jenkins, it can reduce it by about 30 percent. That's a lot. Overall, it's really easy. Try it out. There is nothing one can do wrong.

From my experience, UFT One is good in terms of automation of multiple applications. For example, if you have five applications and any one of them is not suitable for automation by UFT One, you may have to re-think using it. But if all the applications are compatible with UFT One and you are able to automate, it's better to go with UFT One. We don't have much continuous testing in our process because we don't do Agile testing, but we do have some amount of testing for what we call "rapids," for defects or announcements. It is useful when it comes to the second or third sprints where there are use cases in which we can leverage speeding up the testing. But we haven't used UFT One for a continuous delivery, as in from build to deployment. There are several new features which we can explore and use for continuous testing, but our project, not being Agile right now, has limitations in that regard. Management is looking to convert it into an Agile project soon and I expect we will start using UFT One full-fledged, with all its features. I'm very comfortable with the UFT One for our project needs.

If someone is new to test automation, we will typically propose UFT One. Micro Focus recently started offering UFT One as a PaaS, which has been helpful for our customers. I would rate this solution as a nine (out of 10).

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.

If you are looking to implement any tool, not just UFT One, you should always go into it with some form of use case or expectation of what you want to do. Opening up a tool and tinkering is never a good idea. If I sit you down in front of Photoshop, and just say, "Have fun.", I don't know what in the world is going to happen. But, if you go into it, and say, "Well, I need to be able to touch up these photos. I need to be able to do this," then those are use cases. Everybody starts with a super-duper happy path. "I want to be able to script logging into my application." That's great. "Now, I want to be able to take that and run that cross browser." This is good. "Now, I want to take that and I want to run them to multiple machines." That all depends on if you're thinking about execution or script building, which is regardless of what tool you are implementing. For UFT One, you might need to polish up a little bit on your VBScript. However, with any automation tool, there is the totality of the language, and you probably only need to know 15 percent of it to do that automation. You don't need all those other structures. As you are beginning to go down your path: * Have fun. * Don't forget about the need for abstraction. Abstraction is your friend. It can make your future maintenance costs incredibly low. Without abstraction, regardless of the tool you use, you are setting yourself up for a maintenance nightmare. Planning out the actions that you want to take are absolutely key. We started off with the AI bits. We did tinker a bit, but with any tinkering you realize, "Okay, I'm just kind of playing around, not really doing anything with nothing productive to show. I might have accidentally made something, but I didn't purposely do anything." So, we started going through our core reusable pieces and scripting them out. Do not forget that UFT One is not just for GUI. API testing comes with the products. You are already paying for it, and it is an absolute dream to work with. What is cool is even just from 15 to 15.0.1 to 15.0.2, I feel like they're definitely investing a lot. They are continually adding to it and making it better to use. We can build tests faster, then we can repeat the testing that we are doing faster. I don't think it will ever decrease the defects, but we can test with automations sooner and earlier. Theoretically, I don't need the application to do the test building. I just need it to proof the test. So, if a UX markup person can give me some screens, like in Photoshop, of what it will be, then we can technically build our automation against that, using just a screen. Or, if a developer can send me some screenshots or give me a sneak peek, then I can get screenshots and we technically should be able to automate and have things built when a release is done. Right now, we are just doing so much new feature development that we haven't been able to do that yet. I don't think it will ever reduce the number of defects, but hopefully it will allow us to find them more reliably and earlier. The one thing I think will help us out quite a bit is data permutations. For example, you are registering for site A, B, C, or D, there are a lot of permutations of data that you can push through there. For manual testing, you might pick the top 10 out of 50 because you only have so much time. However, we don't have to do that anymore. We can just send them all through with automation. I think it will help us have those scripts earlier and have them be more stable. There is technically nothing preventing the dev team from running tests. So, a possibility is we can convince them to run some more tests before they actually deliver the app to us. We don't use SAP at all at this time. I would rate this solution as an eight point five to nine (out of 10). You learn to love it. People are really great at picking on things the moment they start using it. They look for reasons to hate it. That is not the way you should think about things for any tool.

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

My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it integrates well into your environment, is easy to use, easy to maintain, and makes your development efforts more efficient. The entire development chain, including smoke tests, will be improved. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I rate Micro Focus UFT One eight out of 10. if you're considering UFT Developer versus UFT One, you should consider the skills of your team. You should go with UFT One if you want to leverage more people who have testing knowledge. If you're only using the engineering team and plan on not using the business, then you can save quite a bit of money by going with UFT Developer.

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.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. Micro Focus UFT One is outstanding. All HP processes are excellent. I used to use HP Test Director, HP QC and HP ALM. So I am confident that Micro Focus UFT One is useful.

The clients we work with are partners with MicroFocus. I would rate Micro Focus UFT One a five out of ten.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10. The most important recommendation is to get trained before using this product. There isn't a lot of advanced information on the internet for free, so get trained first and then use the product at maximum capacity.

I would advise others to use Selenium HQ and C Sharp because they are better, consistent, reliable, and scalability than Micro Focus UFT One. I rate Micro Focus UFT One a five out of ten.

I rate Micro Focus UFT One nine out of 10. I stop short of a perfect 10 because it has room for improvement with the installation and some add-ins. UFT One has good coverage of different environments and any Windows application or web application. It's like a record-and-play kind of thing. It has many features for that.

I would not recommend this solution to others who are considering it. I would rate Micro Focus UFT One a five out of ten.

We're just customers. We don't have any business relationship with Micro Focus. Personally, the solution doesn't meet my expectations. The design is really old. It's possible we'll be talking about changing soon. I'm not sure if it will happen, however, I would prefer to try something new. A person with no programming background might really like this solution. I, however, do not. On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate it at a five. I have a technical background and I don't really like using this tool. It's better for someone with less programming experience.

My advice to anyone regarding this solution is that if they have the money to purchase it, they could, but Selenium would be the first choice because it's more widely used. UFT quite expensive. It's about $3,000 per seat, whereas Selenium is free of charge. So if you had 20 users who need to use it, you'd have to spend close to $60,000 on QTP plus annual maintenance costs. Whereas with Selenium, it's free of charge and you get all the support you need on the internet. On a scale of one to ten, I would give Micro Focus UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis. Whereas with Selenium, because it's open source, you're relying on the community to give you that technical support if you have issues and if you can't resolve them, there is really nobody to give you a patch or anything. So I think that with QTP having Micro Focus behind it, you've got some protection. The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue.

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.

I'm not sure this solution is the future with many companies now moving to agility-focused solutions. I have used these products for the past 20 years and they were good and fast but now there are other competitors who are coming out with better solutions. I would rate this solution a six out of 10.