OpenText UFT One Reviews

We use Micro Focus UFT Developer because we had a desktop-based application. To automate it, we used UFT for the automation framework and to run tests, including the regression test, smoke test, and integration test. We use the data from the UFT framework.

We had 10 users. That's where the license challenge comes into the picture because we couldn't afford that many licenses, so we had to reduce the team. We don't have plans to increase the number of users because we have been using UFT One for the past three months.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support.

They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost.

The tool also takes a lot of memory. It's really heavy on the CPU. If I need to run the virtual machine, I cannot go beyond 8GB RAM. 

I have used this solution for four years.

The solution is stable.

Technical support is good. I didn't work with Micro Focus directly. I used Stack Overflow and another blog. People who have used Micro Focus technical support have told me that it's good.

We're currently using UFT One.

Deployment was quick. We're not on the cloud and all, so everything was done manually. We haven't faced any challenges in deployment.

Deployment was completed in-house.

We have reduced 20% of our total efforts. A lot of automation has been put into place.

The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license.

It's a yearly subscription.

The current proof of concept is for Tosca.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. 

I would recommend this solution to those who want to use it.

For desktop-based applications, the automation is good. They offer wide support if you're stuck with anything. There are a lot of support groups like Stack Overflow and other community groups where you can find the resolution for a technical issue. There's a lot of support because it's an older tool. 

It's pretty comprehensive and easy to learn. The industry is full of open source and cheaper options because everything is moving to the cloud. For instance, Tosca poses a challenge to HP. Micro Focus should reduce the license cost. Otherwise, they will be very much cornered in the market.

We use Micro Focus UFT One for testing web pages and the script is in AngularJS.

Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent.

I have been using Micro Focus UFT One for approximately three years.

Micro Focus UFT One is not stable.

The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good.

The support from Microsoft is not good. They are very lazy in answering anything. If we create a request, it takes months for them to respond to us.

I have used previously C Sharp and Selenium HQ, and I prefer them over Micro Focus UFT One.

The setup of Micro Focus UFT One is easy.

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.

VBScript is easier to learn than Java.

There are many new and old features in UFT 14.01 which are valuable.

In UFT 14.01, new support has been added for AngularJS 2.0 and 4.0. While most of the AngularJS objects were recognized out-of-the-box in UFT 12, 14.01 now also recognizes grid objects, such as Web tables.

Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator.

• Need 10 to 100 random city names?
• A range of random dates?
• What about a list of first and last names? Random numbers, emails and passwords? Even IP and MAC addresses?
• Need a list of random part numbers in a custom format? The Regular Expression data generator will fill your need.

This data can be exported to internal Excel data worksheets that give upfront visual access to data for starting data driven projects.

The UFT has multiple approaches for object identification including:

• Object Repository
• Descriptive programming
• Object collections
• Relational recognition (Below or right of another object)
• Insight objects (Image recognition)
• Virtual objects

Ensures you can find objects by the DOM, CSS and XPath, but descriptive programming is often easier to read.

Connections to MS Excel and popular databases allow users to move to the advanced frameworks of data acquisition with SQL queries.

The fully-redesigned Run Results module is simply beautiful. Someone tried to compliment me on rolling my own results page, and I admitted what they were looking at was completely out-of-the-box.

Let’s not forget being able to make external calls to supporting tools, like AutoIt, as well as the Windows API, to provide expanded functionality.

Lastly, support of version control in both the stand-alone tool and the ALM repository.

Our current project features more than a 1000 manual test cases, which took several days and resources to execute. Now, the suite executes in six hours and less than two when run on multiple machines.

With Jenkins connected, or the new cloud-based StormRunner Functional Testing, the tests can be launched anytime, even at the end of day, and be ready for analysis the next morning.

It is important to note here that another Micro Focus product, ALM (aka Quality Center and Test Director), has long suffered from “click-itis” since its release. Nearly every dropdown is collapsed by default. Two option choices are implemented with dropdown lists rather than radio buttons. Most edit fields require opening an additional edit panel in the unlikely chance you need to bold or italicize a step summary. So navigation is a perpetual repetitive click-expand experience that quickly becomes a total turn off to the user.

I mention this shortcoming of ALM because, unfortunately, this design is seeping into UFT as well. UFT 14.01 has eliminated the "Run" button from the shortcut menu bar when a function library window has the focus. In effect, where you could click just one button to run a script in UFT 12.54, you will now have to click the Test tab first to get the Run button to appear to be clicked. Fortunately, the F5 (Run) and F11 (Step-through) keyboard shortcuts still work regardless of the window with focus.

It looks like User Acceptance Testing of the product is getting bypassed entirely because this design has precedence in UFT. Throwing an object to the Watch window almost always requires two attempts. So, train yourself to always click the Watch window tab first. More “Click-itis” for the user.

UFT 14.01 did make one long awaited improvement that is very welcome. The object Spy utility can now be left open while writing code. This means you can paste multiple property names and values from the Spy into your object identification code without having to repeatedly close and reopen the Spy tool. Now, if two Spy windows could be launched to compare the properties of two similar objects, that would be another welcome click-reducing feature.

The list of good features far exceed the bad. Here are a few that could be addressed in upcoming releases to get the tool to a perfect rating:

• Double-clicking a function in the Toolbox window used to take the developer to the source code. Now, it throws a function call wherever the cursor happens to be. This runs the risk of breaking code. UFT 14.01 fixes a feature that would replace selected code. It now just jams the code in the middle of the selection, which is still not great.
• Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function.
• The Run results module counts the number of Fails and Warnings in a test, but not the total Pass results. Workaround: Roll your own results counter code.
• No RegEx support of integers properties in the Repository and Descriptive Programming. If the tool just allowed [1-9]\d+ in the Height and Width properties, the returned object collections would exclude all non-visible objects. Workaround: All objects in an object collection need to be tested for height or width to ensure visibility, but slowing execution.

I have worked with QTP/UFT for 13 years continuously. My projects over the years have included the tool along with the use of ALM (aka Quality Center or Test Director), Business Process Testing (BPT), and TAO for SAP.

The product is extremely stable. It's been my tool of choice for nearly two decades because it is solid.

Scalabiliy is entirely up to the framework design. While Record and Playback are available for new users, it will result in fragile high maintenance and unscalable test suites. That's true of most automation tools, so a hybrid framework design approach is always highly recommended. Fortunately, UFT is extremely flexible in design.

Advanced developers can go so far as to design a framework which translates to Plain English ("Click Ok Button") into script code (WebButton("InnerText:=Ok").click). This leads to function designs similar to Gherkin & Cucumber, bypassing the object repository entirely.

With BPT (Business Process Testing), non-technical users can easily build test cases inside of ALM (Application Lifecycle Management) from scripted components designed by automation engineers. Simply copy an existing test and add additional components that meet your test requirement.

Scaling to push multiple tests executions with different data sets is also easy to implement particularly with the new Data Generation Tool described above.

Lastly, scaling object class methods to add new functionality or modify the process of execution is achievable with just a few lines of code. The tool even provides a Function Definition Generator Wizard to help build the code the first time.

Micro Focus support is OK. Orasi support is outstanding.

Prior to using VBScript-based UFT/QTP, I used Mercury Interactive's C-based Winrunner before the product was discontinued.

Initial setup is very straightforward and takes about 45 minutes, including one system restart. The tool installs the bare minimum of add-ins. To add more, it takes about 15 minutes.

Installing the Terminal Emulator add-in is easy, but configuring it is a bit tricky. This being a bit of a horse and cart issue, as you can't see the configuration option unless the Emulator is up and connected first.

For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand.

While many will argue there are other tools available that are free, you may find it hard to find one which supports so many new and legacy web technologies, terminal emulators, and Windows thick client applications. It's the kitchen sink of tools with an easy to learn language, a solid history, and extensive support resources.

I only work QTP/UFT engagements, however I do compare functionality of other tools in my spare time, including Selenium, SmartBear TestComplete, and HPE LeanFT.

AngularJS support, Data Generation and New Spy features are great, but creeping “Click-itis” sours user experience.

There are so many features! The tool is easy to learn, flexible, and extensive.

Be sure to have new automation engineers trained beyond basic YouTube videos, and avoid on the job training. This will prevent rookie mistakes that will generate unmaintainable scripts and re-work in the future.

Micro Focus provides tool training, as does Orasi and RTTS in New York.

One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA. I believe we were still using customer technology such as Salesforce and SAP, but once Salesforce went cloud-based. We began using UFT primarily for SAP applications. SAP ECC, as well. Regardless of which desktop is installed, UFT is still quite powerful.

Micro Focus UFT One integrates well with SAP ECC, but not with the S/4HANA.

I believe there are a few problem statements, but the one that comes to mind first is that execution on SAP systems is time-consuming. It takes time. We spend a lot of time executing the scripts. 

For us, for example, the execution is time-consuming, in SAP, I have a regression suite for SAP, it would be close to 300 business scenarios, where every scenario, will have a minimum of 20 to 30 pieces. I'm referring to a business scenario, not a test scenario or a test suit.

I would have 300 business scenarios, but I just want to click a button and have it execute in an external common feed result. That kind of comfort that I have never felt here. Every script we have to run, as well as any manual intervention. Someone has to be present. We have a lot of challenges ahead of us.

The second issue is test data management, which is a little cumbersome for this tool, and the third is that Microsoft only works with certain SAP modules.

It performs well, but it doesn't work as well on the web GUI as it does on Tosca, Selenium HQ, or Worksoft. Micro Focus, in my opinion, lacks more SAP versions.

Another issue is anywhere SAP has this overnight batch scripting that needs to stay where I have to run certain parts of the script for today, then wait until tomorrow for the batch jobs to run, and then execute the same script from where it left off. Those kinds of scenarios are extremely difficult to replicate in UFT.

I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason.

Because when we first started 10 years ago, I thought QTP would be the tool for SAP automation, but I no longer believe that. There are so many competitors in the same landscape.

They must understand their UFT position in the market and position themselves accordingly. It is relatively easy for people to go to UFT when necessary. Even if the client, prefers Worksoft or Tosca, quick list automation tools. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has done anything differently over the years to keep their market share, or if they even agree on a strategy.

I have been working with Micro Focus UFT One for approximately nine years.

The stability of Micro Focus UFT One is very good and compatible with SAP ECC, which is a component of it.

In my opinion, and based on my implementation knowledge. In our environment, it is very stable when working with my SAP legacy application, but now with SAPS/4HANA, which is hosted in the cloud. Micro Focus has a long way to go for those systems, in my opinion.

Because of SAP, I would rate the stability a five out of ten.

In terms of scalability, on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the best, I would rate it a five, because we couldn't use Micro Focus across the technology. It was good within SAP, but scalability comes with its own set of complications. I don't think it is as adaptable as it could be compared to my other tools, which have a good number of reusable components.

I can quote license numbers because my customer has enough licenses, but what we consume is much lower because we only use it for one part of the enterprise because Micro Focus is not worth the time. I couldn't use it as a single entry tool strategy for my team's automation tools.

I would say we have enough licenses. We have 100 licenses dealing with the customer. However, I am consuming hundreds of licenses from the automation.

We raised SAP cases with the SAP team whenever we encountered a problem. But I am not sure how well the new tools work off the task of raising new cases with them to resolve. I don't believe we raise much with Micro Focus.

We have not contacted technical support with MicroFocus. 

We went through our client. Worksoft is a software tool that my customer purchased. Worksoft is also a vendor for my customer. However, we continue to raise technical use cases and technical cases with Worksoft in order to resolve our optimization technical issues. But, from what I recall, we don't do anything similar with Micro Focus.

I have hands-on experience with Micro Focus. I have, implementation knowledge of LoadRunner on Worksoft. And I did a proof of concept for that kind of model for one of my projects. That is my experience with these tools.

Micro Focus UFT is a good product in my opinion. I can say it's a stable system and it's a legacy. We have been using it for a long time. You can see that the resource pool that I would get if I worked for UFT is quite good. In this regard, I believe Micro Focus UFT would be my first choice for SAP implementation; however, they are not as up-to-date with industry demands as the other providers.

I believe it was satisfactory. But the only challenge we had was whether there was support or not. The installation within the technology was fine, but if I wanted to use it across multiple technologies in an end-to-end integrative scenario, it was a little lacking. Unlike other tools.

They provide customized packages for each technology, just like other Windows, but we don't see that type of library with the UFT. They do have one, but I don't think it's very advanced.

The client has a large number of licenses, which they obtained along with their SAP. The SAP licenses include Application LifeCycle Management. And this has been with our client for at least 12 to 15 years.

I believe it should be three and a half to four out of five. The price is reasonable. They are inexpensive.

The clients we work with are partners with MicroFocus.

I would rate Micro Focus UFT One a five out of ten.

I personally have experience with UFT One, yet only with the GUI part. I'm not familiar with the AP part. There are projects which work with UFT One and also with the AP part as well.

It's not a capture-and-replay. We don't use this only for getting something into the editor. There are possibilities to materialize the scripts.

We use the object repository, which is really great. And so is the way objects are organized in UFT and the way you can use modules by yourself - not the actions, rather, the self-scripted modules in the function library. That's the main benefit for us.

It's simple to set up. 

Last year, we had a discussion with Micro Focus, and they said they have plans to switch from DBS to Python - or at least to offer Python as an additional programming language for building automation scripts. Then, there was no progress in these plans. That's our main concern with UFT. PBS, as the programming language, is pretty old-fashioned, and a lot of things would be much easier with Python.

We had problems with the last version of the solution. There seems to be something wrong with the loading of external data into the internal data sheets. We loaded Excel sheets dynamically during test execution and stored them into the built-in data sheets of UFT, and it seems that sometimes you cannot reuse already existing internal sheets for storing new data in it from outside, from external Excel sheets. We used it a lot, and we didn't have any problems with that in the previous version. This is a new issue, and we tried to isolate this problem, and then we wanted to discuss it with Micro Focus directly. We have yet to contact them.

The solution is expensive. 

We've worked with the solution across several releases. We've used it for about ten years or so. 

The licensing is scalable. That said, the product itself is the product and we really build large test sets with hundreds and thousands of test scripts. So we didn't have any problem scaling the test sets, so to speak. Just not the product itself. I don't know how to scale the product itself.

There are a few alternatives when you want to automate tests for non-web applications. For example, Java applications or PowerBuilder applications, or .NET applications. UFT One is really, really good. When you only have to automate tests for web applications, then Selenium is maybe the better solution since it is much cheaper. It costs nothing as far as I know. You have to learn some programming language, however. You need to use Python or Java or something else in conjunction with Selenium. Maybe the first hurdle is a little bit steeper than using UFT. Then, when you can build some framework around Selenium, then maybe when I would have the personal choice, I would choose Selenium - only for web applications. While we know that there are some alternatives to UFT for non-web applications, we know there are not that many. Tosca is one of the big players. However, we don't know it. We only know that it exists, and most people who use it say it's really good.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

When I installed it on my virtual machine, it was less than an hour, and then it's up and running. We are well trained in such things, so maybe for one who is really new, this will take two or three hours to set up. I don't know. That said, it's not a major concern.

The pricing could definitely be lower. I don't know the prices by heart. I'm not the one who discussed this with Micro Focus. I've heard several times that this is really expensive and we also have problems exactly for that reason. For example, for a user interface test to Selenium. At least when the SUT, the system under test, is web-based. There's not only the buying price. It's also the maintenance price. 

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.

I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code.  

General users can create the scripts, and you can bring in an engineer if you're struggling with one of them. It saves you money because you don't need an engineer there the whole time. You only need an engineer for your initial planning and implementation.

I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better. 

We haven't experienced any stability issues so far. 

UFT One is easier to scale because you can bring in more people without a strong coding background. As long as you have a good plan, it's fairly simple to take an entire team of manual testers and have them create test scripts. It's much better than getting a whole group of engineers to set up and build the test cases.

Setting up Micro Focus UFT One is straightforward. 

UFT One's license is somewhere in the $5,000-a-year range.

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.

This solution is typically used for desktop-based applications where you cannot use Selenium or other web-automation tools.

It's deployed on-premises.

There are five people in our organization who are using the solution.

It's a complete tool. The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel. You can do keyword-driven or data-driven frameworks easily, and you can create automation frameworks very quickly. It covers all the needs of a desktop-based application.

Integration with Jenkins and any CI/CD tool is also valuable.

It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower.

I would rate the stability as seven out of ten.

I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten.

Setup is straightforward. It takes time, but it depends on the CPU that you have. It's a one-time effort. At maximum, you need one admin person to handle maintenance and deployment.

Implementation can be done on-house.

We have seen a return on investment.

It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription.

My organization switched because they wanted to do the POC in the latest version, not the old version of UFT.

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