Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis.

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.

In the past, we used Internet Explorer to run our scripts and when it was decommissioned we switched over to Google Chrome but we had some compatibility issues in the beginning. The issues were corrected with Chrome but I would like both Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge to be compatible with the solution.

We used to have difficulty with some of the Guidewire application objects because they would often change, requiring us to write many lines of code for a single object. Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient.

The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product.

A person who buys the solution for the first time will not have a step-by-step approach to using it. I have worked with Cypress, Selenium RC, WebDriver, and other tools. I have been automating applications for the last ten years. I have never seen a solution that is difficult to learn. Learning was a challenge for me with UFT One.

The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features. It provides paid training. Understanding the tool's complete architecture took me one or two weeks. The product should provide free training for basic features like how to capture an object, create a new test case, connect the test cases, and create libraries. The product should explain each function and feature on the left side of the menu bar in a step-by-step way.

The product should provide a mechanism for online reporting accessible to every stakeholder. When I used to create test cases and execute them, I used to get the local reports. There should be a live online reporting mechanism. The live application must be available for every stakeholder, whether a manager, developer, or QA.

They should include AI-based testing features in the solution for assessment and identifying potential databases.

It is script-based. We'd like it to have less scripting. It might make it easier to use. 

Newer tools have a nicer user interface.

We'd like something more aligned with SAP.

Technical support could be more responsive. 

Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field.

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. 

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.

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 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.

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. 

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. 

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

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.

The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails. 

The solution does not have proper scripting, which impacts the solution. We are currently deciding whether we want to keep the UFT and will decide by the end of December. We paid a lot of money for the UFT, and we will only drop it as a last option.

There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT. Most of the time, administrative rights are required which necessitate much trouble to integrate it seamlessly. When integrated, it works fine, but to maintain it in CI, special systems and privileges must be utilized. This is challenging for us.

In addition, UFT One has a Jenkins plugin that provides us the connection we need to OpenText so that we can obtain our UFT test cases. The problem is that the plugin does not come with exception handling, meaning that if we enter the wrong credentials we don’t know why it does not work. This can lead to the Jenkins server crashing.

Another issue is that we can't address the UFT output to the Jenkins console. This means that when carrying out our tests in a continuous integration server, we cannot know what the UFT tested, step-by-step.

The usability can also be improved. When we receive new versions of UFT, some of the icons are altered so that things are not recognizable to us or to the customer.

Another issue is that the application requires slow work. If you go too fast while debugging, the Step Over button may easily change to the Stop button.

The Git integration is also a point when it comes to continuous integration. There are aspects that are not recognized by Git. We cannot do a side by side comparison of changes, such as comparing the QSL side and the object repository side.

When they updated UFT from version 14 to 15, they changed the data table structure of UFT, such as the first data line turning into the column name. This is a problem as our customers may have different versions of UFT. An example would be if we wish to change the data table of version 15 but a customer has version 14, it can be problematic. This destroys the tests.

Another question we have is why everything is in read mode during the execution. With other IDEs, like Visual Studio, you can change the variables while you execute or debug something, and this is not possible in UFT. It's only in read mode, so you can’t play with variables or objects.

Also on our list is the fact that UFT allows you to work on 11 or 12 tests. If you want to change something with search and replace, you can only change it in the 11 or 12 tests that are open in the solution. But what if we have a 13th test case that is not included in the solution? We then need to open that test after we have already searched and replaced. That's a little bit inconvenient because other IDEs give you the opportunity to make those changes everywhere, in every script, not only the 11 or 12.

We have already addressed some of these issues with technical support, but not all of them have been handled. For example, we brought up the issue of the icons changing with every version some years ago and nothing has happened. It gets worse and worse from version to version.

We also have menus and instructions for our customers, but because all the screenshots become outdated with the next version, we have to do maintenance on them all the time. And it’s not because of new functionality. Most of the time, only the icon style and the design is changing and sometimes it’s the positioning that changes and we are not able to reconfigure it. We end up having to do a lot of work without any need for it.

The old VBS language can be a nuisance. It could be easier to use and it could be better integrated in continuous integration pipelines. And it could always be faster.

They should improve the solution's tracing functionality. There should be an automated feature to load the backlog of test requirements.

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. 

One area for improvement is its occasional slowness.

The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java.

When it comes to pricing Micro Focus is expensive, and it doesn't support test case panel execution.

I think that over time, Micro Focus has not really understood the market needs.

They are still improvising the UI. 

They need to really understand how this tool fits into the DevSecOps ecosystem. We have been giving that advice, but they have not taken it into account.

I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps.

The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute.

The solution's size could be improved because it takes up a lot of space. 

There a lot of things that can be improved:

• Support for other environments and other infrastructures.
• I hoped that it would also be useful for the internet of things and big data. At this moment, it is not useful at all for big data. I don’t really know for the internet of things, but I think that it's not very substantial; but I hope that it will be in the future.
• For automatic functional testing, it works fine and covers a lot of statistics, but there is always something that doesn't work. It could be little or not.

One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all. We only had the functional test piece of Unified Functional Test. Which, from a marketing or an understanding point of view, was a little bit questionable. So then I needed to go and spend a significant sum of money to get the "Unified" aspect of the Unified Functional Test.

There are some command-line and other crude methods to integrate UFT into non-HP software suites. This area could be improved, but overall there is little incentive for HP to do so.

From a sales pitch perspective, everyone is now looking for script less automation, whether they are using the feature or not. So, if UFT One is made as a script less 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.

The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile.

The AI functionality has a lot of room for improvement, as it has just started. For example, when a particular object is found, you have to scroll down, rather than have it done automatically.

The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well.

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.

The amount of space it utilizes on the client side is quite excessive. A lot of users are offshore and they use VMs. The VM footprint is small, as opposed to a laptop or desktop used by someone onshore. But while the VM is small, the amount of space required for a standard install of UFT is 1.5GB. That's quite a lot and something that should be reduced when considering not all users have the additional amount of space for the install, particularly if they're on a VM.

I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved.

I'd like to see more support for modern scripting languages. I believe they use .Net as their primary, and if we could use something like Java Script or Groovy, in addition, that would be helpful. I think that's possible with functional testing, a LeanFT, but I'd like to see more flexibility there eventually.

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.

We look at service packs, what bugs they have and fixes. We just want to keep pace with where the industry is going, where the shift is in terms of quality assurance and requirement management. HP is very strong on the testing side, but in the last few years with the agile methodology it has lagged behind. It's slowly catching up and eventually it will get there, but we love the eco-system we're in and will continue to move forward.

• Ability to run multiple Lean FT or UFT tests in parallel on the same machine.
• Lean FT to support desktop based applications as well.

The application can be buggy at times and takes up a lot of memory on your PC. Occasionally it can crash or not even start, which causes the user to restart their PC. It would be beneficial if it operated more smoothly and didn’t cause PC problems.

I'd like to see reporting included in the solution, particularly test case-related reports.

Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification. So, if there's more coverage for different languages to detect in development, then that'd be a lot more helpful. Specifically this application which we use is Delphi-oriented, but I had a hard time trying to figure out what was going on with the application because of the language.

It doesn’t support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this. It's also quite an expensive solution.

It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari. That's a very key requirement for my organization.

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. OpenText 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.

I would like to see IDE improvements (collapsible code, being able to open multiple test files simultaneously, having stack trace information). Some of these IDE features have been addressed in the more recent versions.

The solution works for the most part, but the IDE is horrible (although I hear version 12 has a revamped IDE and is much better) and as a result of VBScript being the language, there is no stack trace information available so debugging some errors is not an easy task.

I would like to also see support for other languages than just VBS. Java, Full VB, C#, etc.

Cost is one area where there is room for improvement. We have to start looking at a leaner team and moving into using the Selenium scripts. We have a lot of areas using Selenium, as well, within the bank. I'm trying to get out of using it, only just for regression, as well.

It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS.

It could be improved with greater browser compatibility and more frequent updates.

Also, running a simple test is straightforward, but creating a framework that can be reused across other tests is complex and time consuming.

Those areas I would have spoken of before are being addressed. HP added the LeanFT functionality for UFT 12.51 so users can build tests using Java or C# or other programming languages they might be comfortable with.

I would, however, like to see the application have fewer issues with crashes.

• When it comes to improvements, definitely stability and system requirements are something that could be worked on. In cases of longer tests (in forms of so-called Mega Scripts), there can be a seriously huge usage of virtual memory by UFT that can lead to SystemOutOfMemory exceptions which are showstoppers and a huge annoyance. 
• Object recognition can be tricky sometimes. For example, UFT doesn’t recognize the object during test execution, but when you pause the run and click “highlight in app” button in object repository it recognizes the object and you can continue with the run. You still get the “failed” status in run results although it was a UFT error.

There are scenarios where the tool freezes and locks the user out. Re-opening the tool puts test results in a locked state, making the test read-only. The only way to unlock the test is to have an administrator force close the user’s last login.

Calling GUI tests within an API test or vice versa results in difficult, confusing scenarios on how to update tests properly when it comes to parameters and actions. Most of the time, it is easier to close the tests, open them one at a time, and perform the actions needed before calling the tests together.

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.

Integrating with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation). 

I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications.

I would like to see the integration into HPE ALM Octane. I don't know if this is more on the UFT side or on the Octane side, but as a customer, I don't really care. I just want it to work in a manner in which we could use Octane for the HA projects in the same way, more or less, that we use ALM so far in the normal, old projects.

The current version is sufficient for our purposes at the moment. There were, however, some issues with deployment and the integration into Solution Manager.

Tighter integration between ALM and UFT, especially from a reporting perspective, for automation reporting. There's good integration in my opinion, but it just needs to be a little more rock solid.

It needs better compatibility with Chrome and Safari, which would lead to this being a better product.

I would like to see more integration with LeanFT and use UFT for continuous integration. It's still a closed product. There's still a reasonably large amount that it can do in order to get better.

Cross-browser testing feature should be improved.

They should also develop a generic framework so everyone can use it who purchases it.

Also, the browser shrinks while running GUI test cases, and UFT hangs while debugging.

I would like to see them remove the shortcoming of working with .NET applications, as there is not much support provided for automating applications developed on .NET.

I would also like to see HP increase the trial period for UFT so that people can learn it by giving them more time. They can then practice more and more to increase their knowledge.

Finally, by providing mobile add-in and an API testing add-in to the trial version, they can help people to grow in this field in a better way.

The knowledge base for getting started isn't terribly deep, so it requires you to have a bit of programming ability to pick it up and use it.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the HPE StormRunner Functional. If it's possible to do it in a good way from the cloud, and you don't have to install it. I've seen that working for the HR manager and ALM solutions, so it would be very helpful. You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out.

We would like to see smart identification (captures a unique object during testing) work more reliably.

• Spy elements
• OR

With my experience, I couldn’t find any need for improvement.

UFT is rather slow in execution, and that’s something that needs to improve. It runs strips rather slowly as other tools handle the same modular strips much faster.

It's fine, but we've had to do workarounds for some things.

Well, I'm not an expert but from a deep technical perspective, it has been odd-neat, except for the small failures we had due to particular environments. I haven't got a good idea though, I'm not deep into it.

I’d like to see them improve the number of objects recognized without customization, similar to TestComplete by SmartBear. Simply put: It would save test development time, which would reduce time-to-market.

I think that UFT should support more robust keywords to work with a low number of applications under test.

I'd like to see a scanning feature that shows the changes that happened in an application and the auto updates them. This would help reduce the time in maintaining scripts.

In future versions, I would like to see the ability to turn off the auto-complete, or at least have this working properly as it doesn’t seem to be doing so now. Also, object identification isn’t always 100% reliable, and the development environment kind of gets in the way. It seems as if it’s inflated and gets in the way of just writing code.

Initially, it was supporting only Internet Explorer. This was not an issue, as the corporate choice, was to use that browser. In the meantime, Firefox and Google Chrome became popular and were introduced within the company, hence scripting became more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support those additional browsers.

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.

The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script. Also, the dependency of browser windows to be opened on screen in order for the tool to recognize objects is a big deal breaker since most organizations mandate screen locking when leaving the systems unattended. If we can’t leave a test to run attended, the point of automation in itself becomes a question-mark.

We noticed during our PoC that it needs parallel execution, not execution via ALM.

I would like a version that works quicker. Also, a lot of people can't afford it because it's expensive.

• More details when run-time errors occur (product related - not user or application related)
• Proper HTML reports
• Console logging
• CI integration with console logs

In my opinion, the improvement of the object recognition of new technologies and the capacity to catch more performance info should be desirable.

- Various formats of reporting support should be possible.

Right now UFT supports exporting reports in either HTML or PDF in short or detailed format. If exporting reports could be extended to Excel, csv, XML, XSLT, mht formats that would be greatly appreciated.

- They should improve performance and consistency during execution.

There will be performance degradation on the test environment due to long continuous executions of automation scripts which leads to inconsistency of results, a better way to resolve this problem should be addressed at some point.