Anonymous UserSAP QA Manager at a manufacturing company
DEVARAJ RANGANATHANAutomation Test Consultant at a computer software company
Marc MedinaTest Automation Architect at Watronix Information Technology Ltd
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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)."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automate quickly and to maintain and update scripts."
"The decoupling of the test scripts from the data and the application is a nice feature. When you are creating test scripts, for example, for a web application, you have to learn about Worksoft and how the controls of a screen can be interpreted by Worksoft. For that purpose, you create so-called maps. These maps are loosely coupled to your scripts, which means if the application is changed, the control will be changed from an identifier. You don't need to rework the entire script. You only need to do these adjustments in the map, and then you can automatically reuse the scripts. So, it is really a smart move to have the decoupling of scripts, maps, and 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."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"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."
"We would like this to be able to be used outside of SAP applications, as it would be good for other types of products."
"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."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
"The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"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."
"I can only judge based on the situation that we had around six years ago when we did the tool evaluation. Worksoft was not the cheapest, but it provided the value. For 25 concurrent licenses, we paid more than €400,000, so it was not cheap. In the end, if you see how much time you are saving and compare it with others, its price is okay. We had also compared its cost with the licensing costs for HP and Tricentis, and they were at another level. Now, as we have already booked the licenses, we only have to pay an annual maintenance fee, which is 70%, and that is okay."
"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."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
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).
TestComplete is a powerful and robust automated testing tool for mobile, web and desktop applications. Quickly and easily create accurate and repeatable tests across multiple devices, platforms and environments – regardless of experience level. It supports multiple languages, modern control sets and integrates with open source frameworks and tools like Selenium, SoapUI and Jenkins.
Micro Focus UFT One is ranked 2nd in Regression Testing Tools with 15 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 3rd in Regression Testing Tools with 13 reviews. Micro Focus UFT One is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "Speed, configuration consistency, and accuracy of tests with fantastic results". Micro Focus UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Micro Focus UFT Developer, Silk Test, Katalon Studio and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, Appium and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence. See our Micro Focus UFT One vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
We monitor all Regression 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.