Micro Focus UFT One Room for Improvement

Chris Trimper
Test Automaton Architect at Independent Health
The one thing that has been throwing us for a loop is that they have been changing labels, e.g., how marketing people like to flip-flop around five or six terms. So, there has been a lot of maintenance needed for that. So, the cool thing is that if the "Available Balance" label changed to some other term, then I would just have to go into the script and just plunk the new term in there. Because we are using real devices (apps), AI versus traditional automation can't really make it faster, i.e., for a screen to load on a phone is a screen to load on a phone. Unfortunately, I don't know anything that can make that faster. Emulators might, but I am not really sold on emulators. I want to use real devices. For execution, the only thing that we can do is just run it in parallel, e.g., run one test on multiple phones at the same time, as opposed to phone A, then phone B, and then C. For execution, you are stuck. That is one thing with device testing. With browsers, they had headless browsers, and that made things faster. However, I don't really think you will ever have that with mobile. I could theoretically represent the data bits with API testing, but I still want to be testing the app. Unfortunately, at this point, I don't see how it could ever be faster, shy of using parallel execution. I used to say, "I would like to see them do something more with innovation in it," but then they came out with this AI thing. That kind of blew my mind to think that not only is this technology which is available in a tool that most people have written off, because it is not getting the market share that it once had because people just won't give it a chance. I haven't had a chance to tinker with it yet, but I would be intrigued to see its integration with Git. Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact. There are podcasts out there for everything, and they usually tackle a new topic on a weekly basis. It would just be great to have them do something more like that. Where you send in a letter, and someone picks up the letter, then they answer it for the community talking to the people. View full review »
Kishore Kandula
Practice Head - Automation at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
From a sales pitch perspective, everyone is now looking for scriptless automation, whether they are using the feature or not. So, if UFT One is made as a scriptless tool entirely, that would be very good. UFT also has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts. View full review »
Vinod Khurana
Senior Load Performance Consultant at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
In terms of what could be improved, they need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user and if we're going to spread this throughout the organization, we'll need to spend a whole lot of money. The company can afford it, but we're going to try to promote Selenium as the open source automation tool. All of these automation tools are a tad finicky. They tend to freeze on us once in a while and we get an 85% pass ratio every time we run them, but 15% of the time these tools will fail. And it's not the tool, it's that the browser that they're opening may freeze up when it's time to do something on an application. I haven't looked at Selenium yet. I'm going to get some exposure to it later in the year or next year. But that's the tool that I'm going to focus on and replace QTP with. Because Selenium is free of charge and it's the standard in large corporations these days. As for what should be included in the next release, I don't know much about that because I haven't used QTP in a while. I don't know how much better Selenium is than QTP except for the fact that it's open source. But as far as the features are concerned, I was okay with using QTP back in 2007 when I used it. View full review »
Learn what your peers think about Micro Focus UFT One. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: February 2021.
463,678 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Lead Analyst at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
There are a few limitations when it comes to automating desktop-based application testing. You need a medium to run the test cases. 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. We have other apps which help us to integrate all the tests into a dashboard. So one area for improvement would be to allow us to run that test suite. We would also like to see improvement when it comes to generating reports. View full review »
Dolf Cornelius
Owner at a consultancy with self employed
The problem with the solution is that you need to have highly specialized skills in order to make the scripts. Also, the scripts that you're developing for less scripted scenarios should be more productive. The product needs to be simplified overall. They should look to competitors for ways to make things easier and less complex. It would give them a better market position. For example, they need to make it easier to compose a guest case and combine their modules and then create a test case from combining the modules together rather than scripting. If they simplify the product and work with building blocks, users won't need to do all the scripts. The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients. View full review »
Test Solution Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
The solution makes test automation really difficult to maintain. The design of the test framework isn't ideal. They should work to improve it. The concept is really old. It needs to be integrated with EMM, due to the fact that, obviously, EMM is the one to manage your test. It's almost difficult to manage test automation as a project. It's good for video testing, however, it's not good for a project. The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded. View full review »
Test Automation Eng Senior Analyst at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement. I have had problems with the parameterization chaining. Given that there is a lot of competition in the market from similar tools, the price should be reduced. There should be line numbers in the code. View full review »
Roberto Forlani
Senior Test Manager at Allianz
Improvement could be made in the cost of the solution and the support time involved in solving issues. This is something that is quite tricky. I try to get the support on a ticket, but it takes time for it to be managed. This part is always quite tedious and that's in addition to the renewal process for licensing. It's not managed very well by Micro Focus. We're looking into more open source products. I'd like to see a change in the programming language so that the product would support modern programming languages. It would improve agility which I believe the product needs. View full review »
IT Business Analyst at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes. In the next release, I would like to be able to see multiple scripts at the same time. View full review »
Judith Boucher
Lead Software Test Engineer at Excellus Solutions
It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS. View full review »
Learn what your peers think about Micro Focus UFT One. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: February 2021.
463,678 professionals have used our research since 2012.