Manjunath-RaoSAP Manager at a logistics company
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:
"It is very easy to maintain. With scripts, I can change one line and in one step. Whatever I want, I can do. I don't need to be an expert to use it."
"The easy of use and ease of integration of Worksoft Certify are very good."
"During our yearly upgrades, we have now gotten them down to ten days or less. We have Worksoft run all our integration tests, where it used to take probably six weeks to do that manually."
"Improvement means for us that we have to be better in quality. Due to automation, you can run every automated test case twice a week. If you do it manually, you do it once per release. This is a quality improvement."
"We found that Worksoft is easier to use because our business experts can do the tests. We didn't have to have IT experts."
"The most valuable feature is having a no-code solution for automation, so our QA team and some of our business users can work on automation. Then, they don't have to be developers."
"With Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months."
"We were able to use Worksoft to automate all of the actions that we would have to take after an SAP refresh. This way we do the refresh, then that night or right afterwards, we run the Worksoft script and it resets all of our testing users. This sets them up with the right access, the right approvals, and just sets up everything on the back-end so we can do our scripts the next night."
"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."
"We do not need a separate test management tool because we have there is a management tool. That is a very good feature. Secondly, it has an inbuilt performance testing tool, which is on flash. It has very good record and playback features as well. And apart from that, there is a good inspection feature. Since it comes with all of the packages, it's very good."
"We like that we don't need a separate management tool. This is a good feature. It also has an inbuilt performance tool which is on Flash. It has very good record and playback feature as well. The inspection tool is also very good. Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"I would like to see the impact analysis integrated with the performance testing tool. We have multiple tools doing multiple items. I would like to have one common tool."
"We are looking for some enhancements on the Capture 2.0 tool. This would give us the ability to control it directly, like we could with Capture 1.0. Right now, Capture 2.0 doesn't really work for our Business Analysts."
"There was a change to Capture 2.0. In the end, there have been some challenges with the newer version. Therefore, the company testers, the local ones, do not want to use Capture 2.0."
"When it is unstable, there will be times when a test that we are running in Certify will just stop, and it will say, "Aborted." There will be errors. There will be no explanation as to why it happens. It has now happened maybe one out of 20 times. When it happens, I just tell our QA team to stop Certify and restart it, hoping we don't see it again."
"For the couple of the issues that we were really scratching our heads over, we were in communication with the technical support several times, but they never got back to us."
"We ran into some issues with the version that we were on during the initial setup. We ran into a bug on one version, then they upgraded us to a new version, and we got hit with another bug. So, they had to put us in a beta. That was a little frustrating. However, besides the bugs that we ran into, the install was pretty straightforward."
"The product had some UI issues."
"We have had run ins with some bugs on Business Process Procedure (BPP) and Execution Manager."
"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."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
"By using automation, it reduced about 75 percent of the time when compared to any other tool."
"Saving money and better quality, these are the benefits of Certify."
"I think they came out with a different type of licensing specifically for testing. Therefore, you don't have to use a more expensive user license, you can use an automation license. So potentially, if we had 100 use cases, we could spin up a 100 different machines, have them all run and be done in five minutes. That would be the goal, but I don't know if that would actually succeed or not."
"This solution has enabled us to automate in order to tremendously save time. Only first time when you are recording and creating the script will you spend some time with it, the rest of the time, you are just executing."
"If we do one manual process, it could take approximately two hours. The same process using Worksoft probably takes ten minutes."
"We have seen ROI by being able to free up and give time back to the business for other value-added work."
"On our last big SAP implementation project, we inserted an automation resource into the beginning of the project. Between automating regression processes, data staging, and using our automation to help repair cutover and conversion issues. We saved the project about $1,700,000."
"Worksoft has paid for itself fives times over."
"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."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
VEENA ANTOSenior Automation Engineer
Earn 20 points
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).
Micro Focus UFT One is ranked 3rd in Functional Testing Tools with 11 reviews while Oracle Application Testing Suite is ranked 20th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews. Micro Focus UFT One is rated 8.0, while Oracle Application Testing Suite is rated 8.0. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Application Testing Suite writes "Doesn't require a separate management tool but it is lacking support ". Micro Focus UFT One is most compared with Micro Focus UFT Developer, Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete, Silk Test and Selenium HQ, whereas Oracle Application Testing Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, Katalon Studio, Apache JMeter and SmartBear TestComplete. See our Micro Focus UFT One vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite 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.