What is our primary use case?
We primarily use the solution in order to test functionality on other applications. It does have the capability of screengrabbing, recording, test automation, implementation of test cases, et cetera. It's called Unified Functional Test and therefore it does these functional requirements of the application in question.
How has it helped my organization?
Let's say that we're going to test yahoo.com and there're changes on the yahoo.com page. You can either hire a whole bunch of people to test every button, every functionality, every menu that exists on yahoo.com, or you can use UFT to record one session and then play it back a thousand times. You can either hire a thousand people or hire one person to record that session. And then you can execute the test case a thousand times. It saves a lot of time and resources for a company, in that sense.
What is most valuable?
Every single feature on offer is valuable and useful. As long as it's a web-based tool, you can use this to test the application.
The initial setup is very easy.
The solution is very scalable.
The product offers very good stability.
What needs improvement?
The pricing could be improved. It's a bit high right now. They could make it more reasonable.
Currently, the functionalities do not exist on Ranorex or UFT, however, as the industry continues to evolve and put more applications into a mobile device, the implementation of testing in a mobile device, using either Ranorex or UFT or XYZ, et cetera is just a natural progression of their functionality. This world is not made of only PCs. The solution needs to offer mobile application testing.
That said, that is a very difficult requirement as one would expect that they would need to test across various platforms - including iOS, Android, Chrome, et cetera. Every mobile device seems to have its own standard. The mobile industry would need to also standardize a bit. However, that's not likely. There also hasn't been a unification of testing on mobile devices regardless of the browser.
It requires a good discipline maturity and if the discipline is not there, I spend my time holding people's hands and showing them how to install everything, how to connect, et cetera. Without users with knowledge, users that understand coding, it's very hard to adopt the application.
For how long have I used the solution?
I've been using the solution for over a decade. It's been 12 years or so at this point. We've used it for a while.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The solution has been very stable. We just finished migrating the last group that was using 12.53 to 15. It's just very, very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It is scalable with a minor effort from my end. What we do is provide the binaries. We provide a Wiki page for users to reference, and they can go get it themselves and follow the instructions. I can support one person or I can support a hundred people with the same amount of effort.
The majority of my users are testers and or test automators. I can't disclose how many users are using the application, however, definitely, it's in the range of more than ten and less than a hundred.
How are customer service and technical support?
Technical support is average. We are tier three support for our organization. If we cannot resolve a problem, then we lean on the technical support at Micro Focus. They have their own tiers. Most of the time when we ask for support, we get to their tier one support, and then they can't resolve that, they go to tier two, tier three, all the way to R&D. They have their own process, and we have our own process, however, for the most part, it's difficult to get a straight answer. That said, we have grown to have a good rapport with them so that they do not reference "Did you read the manual? Go to page number..." They now understand that when we call we have exhausted all our references and we need their help. It's a bit better than average at this point. We're mostly satisfied with the support on offer.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I did not previously use a different solution. This is a new tool for me, and I have been supporting it for the last seven years.
How was the initial setup?
The setup is not complex at all. It's one of the easiest applications that I support. You get the binaries, double click as an administrator, and it deploys. The challenge is once it's installed on your machine, then you need to understand that you need to connect to ALM. You need to connect to the cloud server where your scripts are installed. You could use it as a stand-alone, however, for the most part, on an enterprise organization it's best to have a library of test cases that is on the application. In this case, with ALM, you can check out the ticket, check out the test case, execute it, and re-put it into the system for someone else to use.
the deployment is very fast. it only takes about ten minutes to install.
One of the challenges in large organizations is that on a user's laptop or machines, they may or may not have administrative access. You can install anything that you'd upload from the internet. Some organizations prevent that, so some users may need admin rights. If a user installs it without administration access, the application, UFT in this case, does not install all the components necessary for it to work properly.
The maintenance is all in the server, in the ALM server, the client. The maintenance you require for VCO is not very much, however, if VCO relies on a database of some sort, that you connect VCO to a server to get diagrams and they upload, that server requires maintenance, patches, an operating system, and re-indexing of the large components. That said, in terms of UFT, it's a fairly standalone application that requires almost no maintenance.
What was our ROI?
The return on investment for an organization is that the more people use it, the cost per capita reduces. If we buy these two for one person it's a very, very expensive solution. However, if we buy this product for 10 people, then now the return on investment is higher because we have more test automation, more testing, more analysis, more defects are found on different products, et cetera. You should never buy this product or any product only for a select group. It needs to be used by more people in order to benefit from a return on investment.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The pricing of the solution is high. It's more than $10,000 per floating license. That's a yearly cost.
There are no additional costs on top of that, however.
What other advice do I have?
We are just customers and end-users.
This is a client-based application.
I'd advise other companies considering the solution to ensure that your organization is mature in the software development life cycle and that the organization has documentation, videos, and knowledge of where the testers can go for that information. It shouldn't be a repeat of a user's manual or a link to their documentation. They need to translate and synthesize the documentation into very bulleted items.
If I have a user manual that is composed of five pages, I translate all that into three bullet items. The testers do not have time to go and read five pages. First of all, find out where the information is then find five pages of the manual. They might rather go to my tool aides and go bullet item, bullet item, bullet item, and done. Support group needs to put themselves in the shoes of the tester and synthesize the information into succinct and quick tool aides. While it would be easier for me to just put a link to a user manual, which is about a 2,000-page document, no one is going to go through it.
I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten as it requires a junior or senior tester that has done test automation before. You can't take a guide that likes to make diagrams and create test cases. It needs to be the lines of code. You need people who know the programming language. If you don't have that background, it is a very complicated tool for first-time users.
Which version of this solution are you currently using?