Anonymous UserSAP QA Manager at a manufacturing company
Anonymous UserQuality Assurance Specialist at SelectQuote
Vishwa-ReddyTest Automation Eng Senior Analyst at a tech services company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"With autotesting, we have been able to eliminate duplication of test cases across those four areas. This has helped us knock down our number of test cases. Our test cases are also running more optimally. Therefore, it has very much helped in that sense, so we were able to eliminate a lot of test cases and get out of manual silos by running on autotesting, which is more efficient."
"It is a pretty easy tool to use as far as automated testing tools go."
"The biggest feature is the fact that it's codeless. It takes away the problem of finding people with the correct programming language, since there are multiple such languages. It saves time in introducing people to the solution because they don't need programming knowledge, they just need to be able to think logically. This makes it vastly usable by more people who are not even acquainted with IT at all."
"It does allow for good reusability. When it's designed properly and utilized properly, we can put things in a way that allows for reusability, meaning a lot of reuse of VA01, if they're very similar flows, to keep it simple."
"Certify integrates with other tools and it works very well with other machine testing applications."
"It's pretty seamless with SAP and Salesforce because they've built in the field definitions and all the things that you need. You literally turn it on and execute your script and it records it. It's very simple. Then you can go back and put in some of the other functions. For example, instead of hard-coding field selections, you put in a data table so you can run it multiple times or with multiple data. It was actually written to work very well with SAP."
"Certify's web UI testing abilities for testing of modern applications like SAP Fiori was good when we started and they developed it to be even better. We all know that web applications can change objects in DOM quite fast and it breaks tests. To counter it Certify has made object recognition more flexible and generic, so we don't have any troubles."
"The scripting methodology is easy to learn. It is easy to maintain because it is presented in a simple, narrative way. You don't need to know programming." "It has reduced our test maintenance time by more than 50 percent because we don't have to do manual test processes. We have saved over 150 man-hours monthly. It has increased our delivery times. We went from 200 man-hours down (three weeks work time frame) to approximately 40 man-hours (three days work time frame)."
"Record and Replay is the most used functionality for us, as we can record the test cases and play them on multiple combinations of platforms."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"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."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"It would be great if our business testers could develop their own automated test cases. With every release you do, you have to go back and touch your old test cases and bring them up to speed, or develop new test cases. In the beginning, that is a challenge because you have to have someone who is certified in the tool to help you develop these test cases."
"Performance on the web UI part, especially with some of the more comprehensive Fiori features, like the complex tables that are being used, could be improved. In those cases we have noticed a lot of execution-time increase with regards to the Certify solution."
"An area that I would like to see improved is how the permissions are applied. If you're applying permissions groups to a user, one of the options is to delete the group entirely and lose the entire permission group, rather than just deleting the permission from the user, which seems a little silly. In my opinion, that whole module of permissions is very confusing and lends itself to common errors."
"Pricing is a bit high and we would like to have the availability of a trail environment for beginners and training would be great to have and easier to expand and use by more and more consultants."
"Better automation capability would be helpful."
"With the codeless process automation across packaged applications, once in a while, if we get a weird application that's not widely used, it gets a little stickier. First, the software has to learn the fields, so you have to identify all the fields. Once you do that, as long as there isn’t any non-standard code in the application, then it works fine. But there's that one step that you have to do, a step you don't have to do with SAP and Salesforce, for example."
"When it comes to mobile testing, we have a small bottleneck there. You have to buy third-party separate licenses if you want to test on a mobile. Business wise we see room for improvement there, although it's that really critical for us."
"Worksoft Certify needs a bit of improvement for its web-based processes. It can be difficult because you need to recall the maps, then you still have to add-on for your browser. When you are using the browser-based testing, you cannot even move your mouse or do anything on your system when you are using the web-based testing. Therefore, it needs a bit of improvement on that side. While it does work, it needs improvement. From the SAP side, there is nothing better than Worksoft Certify. However, from the web-based, we are moving towards Fiori. SAP will soon be totally web-based. For Fiori, they need to be great with SAP testing. Thus, Worksoft has to improve the web-based testing part for Certify."
"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default."
"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"Technical support could be improved."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"There is a cost involved to doing it, but once you get over the initial cost, then you'll start reaping the benefits and seeing that testing is getting done more quickly and efficiently. We are still early on with it, but the expectation and what we're seeing is that we will start seeing some savings coming out on the back-end once we have this done."
"The price is in line with everyone else's in the market. They are not cheaper nor more expensive than anyone else who was in our RFP."
"The initial investment is probably a little high. It was a little hard for me to sell, but it was a one-shot deal and that's why it's so high. All we are doing now is paying annual maintenance, which we don't have to do if we don't want upgrades, but we do."
"Purchasing and licensing are okay. Go for the perpetual licenses. In that way, you own a license, then you can purchase maintenance and support on top of that, so you don't have to pay every year for it. Even if you don't want it a contract with Worksoft Certify in the future, you will have your own license of it. Then, if your usage is not that much, you can have one or two perpetual licenses. However, if you want to run your processes, you will need more licenses, e.g., using the run-only licenses. They are really cheap compared to the full licensing."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"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."
"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.
Micro Focus UFT One simplifies end-to-end functional testing using intelligent test automation and embedded AI-based capabilities to accelerate testing across web, mobile, desktop, mainframe, API, and composite and packaged enterprise-grade apps.
QA and Testing teams can efficiently scale tests across distributed infrastructures and in parallel on web and mobile; script once and replay all tests with cross-browser support; and leverage a broad ecosystem of integrations from version control to continuous integration to agile and DevOps.
With support of 200+ technologies including SAP, Salesforce, Java, Citrix and more, UFT One increases test coverage from the UI to the API—and everything in between—for true multi-platform application testing.
Micro Focus UFT One is also known as Unified Functional Testing, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP).
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews while Micro Focus UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 15 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.4, while Micro Focus UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Live testing gives us the ability to identify potential issues on different browsers and devices proving to be a very useful tool". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus UFT One writes "Testers have been able to free up their time: instead of doing mundane, repetitive tasks, they shift them off to automation". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete and Eggplant Functional, whereas Micro Focus UFT One is most compared with Micro Focus UFT Developer, Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete, Silk Test and Eggplant Functional. See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Micro Focus UFT One report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.