We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Micro Focus UFT One OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Micro Focus UFT One is the #2 ranked solution in our list of top Functional Testing Tools. It is most often compared to Tricentis Tosca: Micro Focus UFT One vs Tricentis Tosca

What is Micro Focus UFT One?

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 also known as UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP).

Micro Focus UFT One Buyer's Guide

Download the Micro Focus UFT One Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: September 2021

Micro Focus UFT One Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, and
TMNA Services

Micro Focus UFT One Video

Archived Micro Focus UFT One Reviews (more than two years old)

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Paul Grossman
Sr. Test Automation Engineer at NORC at the University of Chicago
Real User
With UFT 14.51 Micro Focus continues to improve and expand functionality
Last year I had the honor to attend the Micro Focus ADM Conference in Dallas, Texas. Participating with other users in a round table discussion, we spoke of what we loved most, and least, about the UFT automation tool feature set. The results of this meeting can be seen in UFT 14.51. Micro Focus continues to show they are listening to their user base. They are committed to making changes large and small that makes UFT more user-friendly and efficient. Here is a quick dive into product changes, some undocumented, in 14.51. Parallel Test Execution adds isolated execution With a ParallelRunner utility, scripts can be executed on up to four different browsers simultaneously. Execution can be performed from a command prompt:…

Last year I had the honor to attend the Micro Focus ADM Conference in Dallas, Texas. Participating with other users in a round table discussion, we spoke of what we loved most, and least, about the UFT automation tool feature set.

The results of this meeting can be seen in UFT 14.51. Micro Focus continues to show they are listening to their user base. They are committed to making changes large and small that makes UFT more user-friendly and efficient. Here is a quick dive into product changes, some undocumented, in 14.51.

Parallel Test Execution adds isolated execution

With a ParallelRunner utility, scripts can be executed on up to four different browsers simultaneously. Execution can be performed from a command prompt:

or by referencing a JSON formatted file.

Parallel execution was introduced in UFT14.50, but there was one drawback: It was difficult to handle events that caused conflicts when executed simultaneously. For example, if multiple tests attempt to perform an LDAP validation with identical credentials, UFT 14.51 resolves this with isolated execution using the ParallelUtil object. This tells other concurrent tests to pause so that the current code segments can execute without any overlapping interference.

You can see a demo of UFT 14.51 Parallel Execution in this short video.

'Open in Repository' speeds Object Repository access

A small change is in the context-sensitive right-click menu makes day to day work in scripts and the repository much easier. In prior versions, users could only jump to the Object Properties… dialog - which has no edit functionality- and then click on View in Repository in order to edit an object.

Now with the addition of the Open in Repository option, a path without the extra mouse click is provided. Users can now jump directly from the code to edit a problem object in the repository. This continues to reduce the "Clickitis" of UFT.

'Go to Definition' jumps to the function between linked libraries.

In prior versions the Go to Definition option only allowed users to jump from the Main Script to a library, or to a function within in the same library. The only way to jump to a function declared in another library was to search the entire project. Now users can jump to function definitions between external libraries.

Spy has a new Hover Mode

Users have long awaited the Object Spy to detect objects that appeared only when the mouse is floated over. This is a switch found at the top of the tool interface, and a message appears indicating the new mode is operational when activated. 
As a reminder, the Spy tool has undergone a lot of improvements in recent releases. It can display the properties of two objects at the same time for comparison. And it's no longer modal, so the user can now move the main IDE window freely, and even edit code, while the Spy tool remains open.

You can see these features in this short video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DHL1qSLCRE

Count and percentages of Pass, Fail and Warnings

The tally of Fail and Warnings in the Results Viewer now report a count and percentage of reported Pass results. 

Users can quickly identify tests with a large count failure from those with single faults from a high-level standpoint. This greatly addresses the prioritization of maintenance when multiple tests in a test suite have failed. 

Persistent Watch List with Undocumented Methods Revealed

Set variable or object property in the Watch list and save the test. Restart UFT, reload the test and view the Watch window. All tracked variables and objects will return without retyping.

The Watch window holds another surprise. Many, if not all, undocumented methods are now displayed including .Highlight, .HighlightAllMatchingChildren, .Init and .MakeObjVisible.
An additional issue has been resolved where only a partial alphabetical list of object properties was retrieved due to a timeout.  

More support for StormRunner Functional with new AOM Methods and Properties  

StormRunner Functional uses Amazon Web Services to create virtual test labs for testing Web and Mobile devices:

Operating systems: Windows 10, Windows 8.1, Windows 7, Ubuntu

Browsers: IE, Chrome, Firefox

Browser versions: Latest version, Beta, Prior Versions

Six Different Screen Resolution: 1920 x 1080 to 800 x 600

One of the major advantages of StormRunner Functional is that it spins up virtual environments only for the run time duration. Add the ability to run tests concurrently and this makes testing in the cloud significantly faster. 

Pricing, Setup Cost and Licensing

UFT is a licensed product, but it has some advantages that make it a viable choice over other open source options.

The first cost advantage becomes evident when Micro Focus tools are combined with StormRunner Functional to run tests in the cloud. SRF runs under Amazon Web Services, spinning up test environments on an as-needed basis. This allows Micro Focus to offer customers a flat rate charge, instead of a pay-by-the-minute plan. This offering can be very attractive to budget-conscious users who have had the surprise experience of paying for machine instances that were inadvertently left idle for days or weeks in the cloud.

UFT has another advantage with the choice of VbScript as its programming language. It's easy to learn and quick to write test scripts. Where Java and Selenium require a much higher level of code density, complexity and multiple third-party support tools by comparison. The ROI of using an open source tool can be lost when the time and manpower needed to get up and running quickly is lost to a high learning curve and the lack of an on-demand customer support line.

Lastly, successful automation projects expand from an initial proof of concept application to other applications under other technologies. So another advantage to consider is the number new and legacy web technologies, including terminal emulators and Windows thick clients supported by UFT.

This makes UFT the “everything and the kitchen sink” of automation tools, with an easy to learn language, a solid history, and extensive support resources.

Initial Setup

Setup remains straight forward taking about 30 minutes to complete, including one system restart. The tool installs the bare minimum of add-ins. To add more takes less than 10 minutes.

Room for Improvement

With this release, the list of good features dominates over those on the desired list. But there are a few changes I'd still like to see.

A user is forced back to the main script during debugging. 90% of code development and issues occur in function libraries. So having the tool jump back to the main script from it's last line of execution is problematic making debugging overly tedious. Fortunately, this is the only remaining source of "Click-itus" in the product.

No RegEx support of integer properties. From an advanced user perspective, if the tool allowed for the RegEx "[1-9]\d+" in the Height and Width properties, a collection of visible objects could be returned. This would eliminate the additional code to search the outerhtml properties of all returned objects for textual cues like "DISPLAYED".

Other Solutions Considered

I have worked QTP/UFT and Selenium/Serenity engagements; however, I do compare functionality of other tools in my spare time, including Micro Focus LeanFT, TestProject.IO, SmartBear TestComplete, MABL and AutoBloks from the creators of Test Design Studio at Patterson Consulting .

Other Advice

Be sure to have new automation engineers trained beyond basic YouTube videos. Avoid on the job training. This will prevent rookie mistakes, producing more robust scripts and less maintenance. Micro Focus tool training is available from both Orasi and RTTS.

Use of Solution

I have worked with QTP/UFT for 16 years.

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.

Conclusion

Micro Focus' Unified Functional Testing tool is returning as a major contender in the test automation field. This release continues to show a real commitment to adding more ease of use and providing more functionality to users.

Disclosure

I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
FP
Senior Digital Business Consultant at HNRG
Consultant
Enables the ability to base test automation on object recognition with the possibility of managing the object repository

What is our primary use case?

Realizing more test automation scenarios and managing the entire DevOps lifecycle. Running test cases along the entire day.

How has it helped my organization?

The approach to the automation test makes the test activities more interesting and improves the software quality.

What is most valuable?

The ability to base the test automation on object recognition with the possibility of managing the object repository is the most valuable feature. 

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.

What is our primary use case?

  • Realizing more test automation scenarios and managing the entire DevOps lifecycle.
  • Running test cases along the entire day.

How has it helped my organization?

The approach to the automation test makes the test activities more interesting and improves the software quality.

What is most valuable?

The ability to base the test automation on object recognition with the possibility of managing the object repository is the most valuable feature. 

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Learn what your peers think about Micro Focus UFT One. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: September 2021.
540,884 professionals have used our research since 2012.
ITCS user
AST at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
We use it to build an enterprise framework for functional automation with CI/CD features

What is our primary use case?

To build an enterprise framework for functional automation with CI/CD features, automate all the standalone applications, and test applications in the cloud.

How has it helped my organization?

We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution.

What is most valuable?

Supporting Windows applications and many other applications, like PeopleSoft and PowerBuilder applications.

What needs improvement?

Integrating with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation).  I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications.

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.

What is our primary use case?

To build an enterprise framework for functional automation with CI/CD features, automate all the standalone applications, and test applications in the cloud.

How has it helped my organization?

We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution.

What is most valuable?

Supporting Windows applications and many other applications, like PeopleSoft and PowerBuilder applications.

What needs improvement?

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

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

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
reviewer789918
Consultant
User
Using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources

Pros and Cons

  • "​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
  • "Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
  • "With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
  • "Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."

How has it helped my organization?

With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources. It has allowed us to focus on newly added features.

What is most valuable?

  • Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users.
  • Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

This was long time ago, with version 8.2. It was automation of a pack of regression set with QTP. It was a success because my customer split regression testing and functional testing. Therefore, I could focus on the part which was identical across versions, then maintain the scripts after new features were introduced over releases.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Paul Grossman
Sr. Test Automation Engineer at NORC at the University of Chicago
Real User
UFT 14.02 resolves issues and reduces "click-itis"
UFT 14.02 resolves issues, reduces "click-itis", shows Micro Focus gets it! The new parent company of UFT, Micro Focus, is showing their user base that they get it. They really get it! Changes in this point release alone remind me of the days when QTP was under Mercury Interactive's vision. Here is a quick dive into many product changes, well beyond what is mentioned in the What’s New section of UFT’s User Guide.   Easier download At times it felt like HP had a hard time getting out of it's own way to get new users to download and try UFT with a 60 day trial license.  Micro Focus has begun to streamline that process. Here is the link to get exactly what you want. No muss, no fuss. https://software.microfocus.com/en-us/download/uft   Yes, it…

UFT 14.02 resolves issues, reduces "click-itis", shows Micro Focus gets it!

The new parent company of UFT, Micro Focus, is showing their user base that they get it.

They really get it! Changes in this point release alone remind me of the days when QTP was under Mercury Interactive's vision.

Here is a quick dive into many product changes, well beyond what is mentioned in the What’s New section of UFT’s User Guide.
 

Easier download

At times it felt like HP had a hard time getting out of it's own way to get new users to download and try UFT with a 60 day trial license.  Micro Focus has begun to streamline that process. Here is the link to get exactly what you want. No muss, no fuss.

https://software.microfocus.com/en-us/download/uft

 

Yes, it records and plays back on Chrome and Firefox too. 


Like Internet Explorer, each browser has a UFT Hook extension that must be enabled before object recognition will work.

It can now record and playback on Chrome with Polymer's Shadow DOM as well.

 

More Tech Stack Support

UFT 14.02 extends support to WebAgGrid objects and Firefox v.57.  


Return of the Run and Spy buttons

My last review praised a new ability in UFT 14.01 allowing the Spy utility being left open while writing code, but lamented the loss of the Run and Spy buttons when a Function Library window had the focus. These buttons are now restored to their original state, substantially reducing "Click-itus" in the product.   There are other design changes that really eases day to day use:

• Double-clicking a function in the Toolbox takes the user to the source code, rather than adding code to a random cursor location.

• Floating mouse-over popups now appear below the code, making it easier to select objects to send it to the Watch window.

• Sending values to the Watch window works on the first try, even if the Watch window is not active.

• There are fixes with Auto-code generation functionality.

• The Spy window split bar is unlocked, giving the user more view space to the property values by default.

 

Test Combinations Generator (TCG) gets a significant new option: Pull from UI

 

The TCG tool was introduced in UFT 14.00 to help users with large Data-Driven test design. It is actually two tools in one: First it is an extensive random data generator. Second it can take small groups of data and generate large combination scenarios organized into Happy Path, Error path and Regression groups.

The new Pull from UI feature now allows users to import data from populated WebLists in an application.


With a simple point-and-click, a list of countries above is imported into the TCG tool and then available for use in the Global table.

To understand why sourcing data from a web list is important, one should have an understanding why the Test Combinations Generator is so beneficial to data-driven testing:

• Need a quick list of random user names? But only with the letter "X"? It does it.

• A range of random dates? Available in nine common date formats? Yup it does that too.

• Same for random URLs, IPs and MAC addresses.

• How about a list of randomly generated emails and passwords that meet specific business rules? A little RegEx gets it for you. 

• Combine eMails and Passwords and you have an instant set of unique credentials of simulated new users.

• Need a list of random part numbers in a custom format? Use the Regular Expression data generator to create combinations.

Hidden TCG Benefit: Learn Regular Expressions


A side benefit here about RegEx: The TCG tool comes with several pre-configured RegEx samples that can be modified. This means it can be used to experiment and learn RegEx much the way many of us learned to code: by modifying a working example and analyzing the results.

 

Test Combinations Generator (TCG) can really mix it up

 

While all this data can be exported into Excel sheets for multiple uses the Test Combinations Generator does not stop there. It can take a few short columns of data values and create larger scenario data sets. Take 10 first names and 10 surname names and TCG can create 100 family members. Add random dates in an 80 year span and you have a simulated population sample.

When using four or more types of data, the combinations can quickly become exponentially large. TCG tops out at just over 65,000 combinations, which might take months or years to run every combination just once.

So Micro Focus offers Pairwise, as well as Triplewise, combination sets. This achieves the most efficient combination coverage. This means your automation script can look for problems when combining two or three list values, without repeating every possible combination.

Finally, the TCG tool further allows the user to identify Happy Path data, as well as Error Path data.

This means you can further segment your data combinations into a small Smoke data set, a Negative data set, with the remaining being the Regression data set.

These data sets can be selected upfront for easy instant access to data driven testing from the Global data table.

To see more of UFT’s TCG tool in action, check out this video:

                  

 

User friendly help messages.

Micro Focus seems to have taken a cue from  Alan Cooper's book About Face and Paul Heckel's Elements of Friendly Software Design. Highly descriptive messages pop up indicating exactly what is needed to activate functionality. In addition, the Help file is now peppered with screen captures and even demo movies.


UFT 14.02 PAM access


Another welcome change is online access to the Product Availability Matrix from the Help menu. In prior releases, this document has often been hidden in the Documents folder under the Start menu.  It informs users what environments and configurations recent versions of UFT requires to run efficiently.

 


Stability Issues

UFT 14.02 remains extremely stable. It's been my tool of choice for nearly two decades because it is solid.

 

Scalability Issues

Scalability is entirely up to the framework design.

While Record and Playback is available for new users to learn the tool, it will result in fragile, high maintenance test suites. This is 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 plain English like:      

"Click the Ok Button"

into executable script code:       

Browser(“index:=0”).Page(“index:=0”).WebButton("InnerText:=Ok").click   

This leads to function designs which in many cases can bypass the object repository entirely. Click here to see a sample showing how this can be accomplished.

With the Business Process Testing (BPT) option, non-technical users can easily build test cases inside of ALM (Application Lifecycle Management) from scripted components designed by automation engineers.


Enhancing Object Methods 

Scaling object class methods to add new functionality or extending existing methods is achievable with the Function Definition Generator Wizard. 


This allows automation engineers to fully customize UFT methods, as well as add new functionality. These methods appear in the Intelli-sence dropdown of object classes. Even descriptions appear on the interface to help new team members who are just learning a new framework design.


Previous Solutions

Prior to using VBScript-based UFT/QTP, I used Mercury Interactive's C-based WinRunner up until 2004. Product support was discontinued in 2011.

 

Initial Setup

Setup remains very straightforward and takes about 45 minutes, including one system restart. The tool installs the bare minimum of add-ins. To add more takes less than 10 minutes.

Room for Improvement

With this point release the list of good features far exceeds those on the desired wish list. 

• When a debug session ends, UFT forces the user back to the main script. 90% of code development and issues occur in function libraries. This is the only remaining source of "Click-itus" in the product.

• RegEx support of property strings, but not integers properties. If the tool allowed [1-9]\d+ in the Height and Width properties, the returned object collections would exclude all non-visible objects.

• The tally of Fail and Warnings in the results viewer lack a count of reported Pass results. From a high-level stand point, a Test with one failure and 99 Pass results looks just as bad as a test with 100 Fail results.


Pricing, Setup Cost and Licensing

 

For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers.

Over two years, a successful automation project can mature to a 24/7 test execution schedule that outweighs the equivalent cost of manual testers. It also tends to expand from a initial proof of concept to multiple applications.

While UFT 14.02 is a commercial product, the sheer volume of internal tools focused on ease of use gives it an edge over other open source products by speeding test development.

Another advantage of UFT is the number new and legacy web technologies, including terminal emulators and Windows thick clients supported by by the tool.

UFT is the “everything and the kitchen sink” of automation tools with an easy to learn language, a solid history, and extensive support resources.

 

Other Solutions Considered

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

 

Other Advice

• Be sure to have new automation engineers trained beyond basic YouTube videos, and avoid on the job training.  This will prevent rookie mistakes, producing robust scripts and less re-work in the future. Micro Focus provides tool training, as does Orasi and RTTS in New York.  

• Consider expanding your Test Automation Engineer's toolbelt with Test Design Studio from Patterson Consulting. It includes a static code analysis tool, similar to Lint, but tailored to UFT. This allows UFT developers to efficiently analyze entire entire code base for errors in a single sitting, not just at run-time.

See Test Design Studio's Code analysis

 

Use of Solution

I have worked with QTP/UFT for 14 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.

Conclusion

Micro Focus' Unified Functional Testing tool is shaping up to return as a major contender in the test automation field. This new release shows a real commitment to ease of use and hints at providing more superior functionality to users in the coming year.


 

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Paul Grossman
Sr. Test Automation Engineer at NORC at the University of Chicago
Real User
AngularJS support, Data Generation and New Spy feature are great, but creeping “Click-itis” sours user experience.

Pros and Cons

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

What is most valuable?

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.

How has it helped my organization?

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.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

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.

How are customer service and technical support?

Micro Focus support is OK. Orasi support is outstanding.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

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

How was the initial setup?

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.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

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.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

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.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user739557
Director of quality assurance and testing at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
Makes it possible to test both the API level and the GUI across multiple technologies, mainframe to web UI

Pros and Cons

  • "I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
  • "I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."

What is most valuable?

That we're able to test both the services, the API level and the GUI, across multiple technologies. At our company, we have everything from mainframe to modern web UI, and UFT allows us to test all of those sites.

I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well.

How has it helped my organization?

It helps improve efficiency in regression testing, specifically, and functional testing, in that we automate a lot of repeatable tasks. Not only do we use UFT for automated regression testing, we also use it for doing repeatable tests even for the business, in test environments and in the higher environments as well.

What needs improvement?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I would say that UFT has been around for a long time, so it is very stable. When we have had any issues, the support team has been able to help us.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We've got global licenses, so we use it on a world-wide scale, and so far it's been great. We even use it on virtualized servers, so it can scale just fine.

How is customer service and technical support?

We actually have our tech support through a partner and work with them very closely. So far, so good. We haven't had a problem they couldn't resolve. We have yet to have an issue escalated to Micro Focus.

How was the initial setup?

I was not involved in the initial setup. It was there when I got there. But I upgraded the licenses to a global license and we got both the full licenses and Run Time, so we're able to run it from continuous integration. That was

straightforward. Fairly easy.

What other advice do I have?

When selecting a vendor to work with the most important criteria would be somebody that's going to be there for the long haul. Somebody who's dependable. Somebody who has active support and supports the latest technology. As we modernize it, the technology stays fresh.

If you have legacy tools like PowerBuilder and Oracle and a variety of others, not just web, then UFT is the best choice. If you're only doing web, you might be able to get away with some open source tools. But if you have a variety of technologies, UFT is great and you can also build your own keyword frameworks on top of that.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user739548
Qa engineer
Vendor
Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier

Pros and Cons

  • "Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
  • "Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."

What is most valuable?

Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier. We have a lot of repeatable tasks which we perform over at the hotel, rolling dates for different applications mainly. We do monthly swap testing or regression testing for every month's window batches and so on. That's mainly what we use it for.

How has it helped my organization?

It's definitely cut down on a lot of time by using this application. We have about ten environments; ten times in every environment manually would've taken most of the day, rather than doing it simultaneously. It saves me hours.

What needs improvement?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I'd say it's a very stable application. I'm still kind of learning UFT, so, it varies by application. I run into issues sometimes with object identification, but, other than that, it's a pretty solid application.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Right now, we're using it more for some of my smaller tasks, but eventually I'd like to grow it, at least in our QA department, towards more applications.

How is customer service and technical support?

Their tech support is good. They respond in a reasonable amount of time. They definitely keep contacting you until the problem is resolved.

What other advice do I have?

To someone researching UFT: It's a very good tool. It hits other applications versus just web apps, which is one of the main things. I think that is why our company purchased it in the first place.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: What they're currently doing, then what their outlook is, e.g., what they plan on doing to their products and how they're going to innovate them. Then just kind of base the decision off of what other companies (in the same vertical) are currently using or if they like the same products.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user357477
Principal Consultant | Contractor Manager at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
Vendor
It's improved the way our organization functions by automating test cases that were previously done manually.

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
  • "It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."

What is most valuable?

The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation.

How has it helped my organization?

It's improved the way our organization functions by automating test cases that were previously done manually. It also improved the robustness and execution time of these test cases.

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using it for one year in my project.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

We've had no issues with deployment.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's been stable for us.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

No issues with scalability.

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service:

8/10

Technical Support:

8/10

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I've used UFT for many years as this tool is the most user-friendly solution for automating tests.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was a straightforward, step-by-step process.

What about the implementation team?

Our in-house admin team implemented it.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It's an expensive solution.

What other advice do I have?

This tool is awesome for automation even though it is expensive.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user671361
Test consultant at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Consultant
You can automate your testing for a lot of different platforms. Scalability is a little difficult as you need to install it on the machines.

Pros and Cons

  • "It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
  • "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."

What is most valuable?

For HPE UFT, you can automate your testing for a lot of different platforms. It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications.

How has it helped my organization?

For test automation, it helps to speed up the testing and to speed up the software delivery, especially for HPE UFT because you have lots of test automation tools. Also, if I compare HPE UFT with the HPE QTP solution, then HPE UFT is more user-friendly in its use. You still have to program it, but you don't have to program it all of the time; so for a user who isn't used to working with code, he can do other things in HPE UFT.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have used HPE Unified Functional Testing (UFT) for one and a half years, whereas the HPE QuickTest Professional (QTP) for a couple more years before that.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We have to download it, then install it on our own machines and the machines sometimes aren't stable; since we have PDIs, also the UFT isn't stable and I don't know yet where the connection is.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is a little difficult because you need to have the machines and then, have to install it. It is less scalable than the other products. For example, the HR manager just takes another workspace in the cloud and then, you work.

How is customer service and technical support?

I'm more happy with the SaaS support for the HR manager and ALM than with the off-premises support, that I have to so through for UFT. This is because, often, when I have an issue with UFT, I get slow responses and most of the times, it is in regards to the things that I have already Googled and tried to figure out myself. So, it doesn't always help me.

How was the initial setup?

HPE UFT is quite complex to set up.

What other advice do I have?

I, myself mostly, have experience with the HPE tooling and I haven't been in the position where I could decide what tooling to choose. I'm hired because I have this knowledge but I would say usability of the tools, (i.e., how you can use it) is the most important criteria while selecting a vendor

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user636204
Performance Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Vendor
We use it mainly for regression.

What is most valuable?

Its ease-of-use. It doesn’t take long to train staff on it. We use a third-party to develop the scripts for us, and they find it easy to up-skill staff to use UFT.

How has it helped my organization?

We use it mainly for regression and it's very useful for that. We reduce a lot of stats around cost savings in the regression packs that we run.

What needs improvement?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We don’t have any stability issues at the moment. Some of the issues that we've had really would be around browsers and browser compatibility. But that's mainly to do with in-house issues, because the industry that I'm in can be a bit slow to adapt new browsers and new software. It's more the way that it interacts with that, than the application itself that causes stability problems.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have 12 licenses at the moment. Cost is one factor that pushes us to use another tool as well.

How was the initial setup?

I would have been involved in the initial setup when it was originally installed. It was too long ago. It was originally QTP. That was a good few years ago. I used to look after the licensing, and the license servers, and all that kind of stuff and that's fine. It is very, very simple. The new licensing model is a lot easier.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user671376
Principal Business Analyst at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
You get rid of manual testing, which is a huge improvement.

What is most valuable?

Well, you got just automation, basically, that's what you wanted. You get rid of manual testing, which is a huge improvement.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using the product since 2012. We use both ALM and UFT together, as a team.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

UFT is stable. Not a problem.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

From my experience, UFT is scalable. Our very first project was quite a demanding project. We had a form of testing hosts of around 40…

What is most valuable?

Well, you got just automation, basically, that's what you wanted. You get rid of manual testing, which is a huge improvement.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using the product since 2012. We use both ALM and UFT together, as a team.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

UFT is stable. Not a problem.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

From my experience, UFT is scalable. Our very first project was quite a demanding project. We had a form of testing hosts of around 40 to 60 and we never had to worry about performance or scalability.

How is customer service and technical support?

The technical support is pretty good. It probably depends on the support contract type you have. Our contract works pretty well as we have dedicated support engineers for our product.

They are knowledgeable and responsive. Sometimes you need a little bit more, but then HP help us to find it as they're knowledgeable troubleshooters. So we never had a problem to get issues fixed when we found that particular person. It was very effective I guess.

What other advice do I have?

When considering vendors we look for stability, support and reliability. And that's probably it. So we probably are not going for small vendors.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
gagneet
Continuous Delivery Lead at SAI Global
Consultant
Top 5Leaderboard
Well supported and lots of resources available but has high deployment costs
Advantages: Well supported and lots of resources available who have certifications, but mostly used in Financial Institutions. Integrated add-on for Flex, Web Services, Silverlight, and Web HTML. Framework issues can be easily taken care of with Odin AXE framework, which uses XML and simple interface. Lots of resources are available who can work on and use QTP. Disadvantages: Ability to recognize complex UI and dynamic content hinders the tool. Mostly used in Data-driven web testing, which makes use of Excel sheets; easy for the user to use, but may cause issues in maintainability. Windows System only focused. Not suitable for Unix-Clones and Mac OS. High deployment costs, and later will incur maintenance costs also, as each programmer has a different coding…

Advantages:

Well supported and lots of resources available who have certifications, but mostly used in Financial Institutions. Integrated add-on for Flex, Web Services, Silverlight, and Web HTML. Framework issues can be easily taken care of with Odin AXE framework, which uses XML and simple interface. Lots of resources are available who can work on and use QTP.

Disadvantages:

Ability to recognize complex UI and dynamic content hinders the tool. Mostly used in Data-driven web testing, which makes use of Excel sheets; easy for the user to use, but may cause issues in maintainability. Windows System only focused. Not suitable for Unix-Clones and Mac OS. High deployment costs, and later will incur maintenance costs also, as each programmer has a different coding style and the new user has to learn and then work on it. Learning curve for it is not steep, as users are available who know VBA and VB Script.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user567963
Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Consultant
Automated and consistent regression testing that can be triggered from ALM. I would like integration with ALM Octane.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the automation of the tests. That saves us a lot of time, especially during the regression tests.

How has it helped my organization?

The regression tests run must faster than if you do it manually. It's assured that the tests are always done the same way. If you run these tests manually, the click behavior might be different or there may be errors during the test. These issues are excluded when you automate it. This tool keeps it consistent.

Another benefit is that these tests can be triggered directly from ALM. In ALM, we have test plans and then we execute the tests. That's pretty cool.

What needs improvement?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is okay. We don't have problems so far. We had some issues in the past, but during the last month, we haven't had any issues with the stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is good, although it’s not without its problems.

How are customer service and technical support?

We have a named support engineer for UFT because we have quite a big platform. We provide this as a solution and therefore the service has to be available. That's the reason why we have a named support agent. It works pretty well. We’ve been satisfied with the agent.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

About 10 years ago, we had Silk Test. We already had UFT when it was either a Microsoft or a Mercury product. We bought it at that time when it wasn't HPE, and we worked with this product for several years.

It isn’t fair to compare this solution to Silk Test. Even at that early time, UFT was way better and easier to handle, easier to program, and the license management was easier. In the meantime, we didn't compare the products anymore because UFT is fulfilling our needs and the support is okay so there is no reason for us to change.

How was the initial setup?

I wasn’t involved in the installation, but it worked. It wasn't a big hassle.

What other advice do I have?

I would suggest just taking a look at this solution and trying it. It's pretty easy to get in touch with and to have your first success with it. You will then like it and step deeper into it.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user568068
Application Delivery CTO – Group Operations and QA at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Vendor
It is accessible to people lacking technical skill. I would like to see integration with LeanFT.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable features are the API testing, the integration with DevOps and accessibility to people without a lot of technical skill.

How has it helped my organization?

We can move beyond manual testing without having to go through a whole transformation of an application.

What needs improvement?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Stability is good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is good. I never have seen an issue with the scalability.

What other advice do I have?

When choosing a vendor, find someone who understands your problems. Build a good relationship. Make sure you can influence the product road map. Look at it amongst other tools in the tool chain. Look at LeanFT as well.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user567828
Software Test Leader with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
It works on multiple platforms and technologies, including Oracle forms and Oracle DB. The licensing and pricing model is confusing.

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
  • "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."

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies. I need that because we have an application based on Oracle Forms and Oracle DB, and I'm not aware of any other tool that would provide the same level of functionality.

How has it helped my organization?

Since I started, we invested in UFT and automation and we have significantly reduced our release cycle time. That has freed up the people who were doing manual regression testing to do more valuable work. The net result is that our cycle time has gone down by a factor of hundreds of percent. And year-on-year, over the three years our error detection rate, by the same people who are now doing good manual testing, has increased by over 300%.

What needs improvement?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It’s awfully stable. Not even something I consider, to be honest, in regards to UFT. It's always worked for the last ten years. It just works.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have not really had to scale it much. It is something that we're looking at, which is why I spoke to some representatives at a recent conference. One thing that's unclear to me at the moment is the benefits, or otherwise, of integrating the UFT product with the architecture that we're going towards; more open source and continuous development, continuous integration type tools. I know HPE does integrate, but I'm not sure how and where it integrates and what the benefits are.

How are customer service and technical support?

I have used technical support and it was okay. What I was doing, in fairness, was fairly non-standard. I was transferring licenses between different locations, different countries, different currencies, different regions; it was all part of the takeover process. It was a little bit complex and drawn-out, but we got there in the end.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

UFT was already installed upon my arrival to the organisation. However, having said that, it is the solution I would have gone for. UFT really doesn’t have a comparable competitor in that space. They used to have competition, but I don't think they really have competition anymore.

How was the initial setup?

The UFT is a simple product. With the exception of the licence server, a six-year-old can do it.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The licensing and pricing model is confusing.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

There's actually two parts to this, because we use UFT for two different functions. For one of those functions, there really were no other vendors on a shortlist. For the other technology stack, we were looking at SmartBear. We were looking at Selenium, which we still use some. We were also looking at various open source tools. The reason we went for UFT specifically was because you could integrate API testing with client-server type testing, which was important to us.

When looking at a vendor, I look for stability first, but that's almost a prerequisite anyway. What is really important to me, and will be increasingly important to me, and I'm guessing, the majority of our customers or potential customers, is HPE's and their product’s ability to integrate with an ever diverging technology landscape. That's the difficult part.


What other advice do I have?

I would tell those looking for a solution to go back to good old-fashioned tool selection based on analysis criteria. Do the homework properly and have an appropriate set of expectations. Get vendors in and have them demo against your application or specification as opposed to generically. Do the CBA appropriately and be wary of open-source tools from the point of view of maintenance and support. But, at the same time, don’t pass over on those, but embrace them. Look for a solution that would allow them to exist in a sometimes chaotic and potentially ever-changing landscape from a technology point of view or architecture point of view. Do not to overthink it.

Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
it_user365925
Technical and Functional Analyst at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
It can test the functionality of graphic visual interfaces and web services.

What is most valuable?

The solution is in the top list for automatic functional testing. It enables you to test a lot of infrastructure, a lot of applications: web, not web, with the different protocols, and so on.

HP UFT can do GUI testing (Graphical User Interface testing) and also can test directly web services using different protocols.
In the first case, the tool interact directly with the graphical interface, recognizing the objects inside (buttons, links, titles, etc.) and interacting with them (clicking, compiling forms, etc.); so the test is done like a human tester do, but automatically.
In the second case, the tool use the web services of the back-end of the application under test, that can be of different protocols (SOAP, REST, database queries, etc.).

At this moment, we are using version 12. Version 14 will be released soon.

It is very flexible. There are a lot of features. We can do a lot of things with it.


How has it helped my organization?

We use it to automate our integration testing. This lowers our total cost because tests are done automatically rather than manually by people. This saves time. With automatic tests, we can run different types of tests simultaneously. This is the most valuable thing.

What needs improvement?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I have been using this product for six years. When it totally changes in a new version, the stability is not very good. For example, when we changed from version 11 to 12, from my point of view it was a mess. It was totally not ready to go into production in companies. Now it very much seems to work for some things. It is not stable, of course; but remember that we are working on different environments. It could be that something doesn't work.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is good. They add a lot of features with every new release. I just learned about the two things that are being added now that are valuable for my organization.

How is customer service and technical support?

It works fine at this moment. We had some problems before with the product. They understood that we were in trouble, and now they are giving us support. Normally, if a company is not having any particular problems, technical support is a little bit slow; but, in the end, if you wait, they either solve the problem or promise to fix it in the next version.

How was the initial setup?

I did this kind of work for some years, so when I did the setup in the organization where I am now, I knew how to set up the product. It was a little bit simple. From that point of view, it is a normal installation; so it's okay.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

It wasn’t involved in the decision to buy this product, but I would say the top vendors: IBM, CA, or Oracle.

I saw some products that are very simple. Ease of use is one of the best things and most important about HPE products.

Other products, for example, are less easy to use, but they work fine.

HP products sometimes have a lot of bugs to fix. You get in trouble sometimes because you want to adhere to some timelines, but then you find that the solution doesn't work. This is a mess for you. The issues of reliability and licensing are also very important, of course, when choosing a vendor.

What other advice do I have?

If you want something that covers a lot of testing topologies, use UFT because it has a lot of features. If you are looking for something simpler, and don’t need a lot of automatic functional testing topologies, then maybe I could suggest something else.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
ITCS user
Consultant at a tech consulting company with 51-200 employees
Consultant
Bulk-object capture automatically builds data tables in order.

What is most valuable?

  • Object recognition
  • Bulk-object capture: automatically builds data tables in order
  • VBScript & C# & Java
  • Industry- and market-leading functional test tool

How has it helped my organization?

It has reduced time-to-market regression from 160+ hours to 12 hours.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have used it for eight years.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

I did not encounter any deployment issues.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I did not encounter any stability issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I did not encounter any scalability issues when it was properly integrated with remote execution controls.

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service:

I rate customer service 9/10.

Technical Support:

I rate technical support 9/10.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We previously used WinRunner and switched due to ease of implementation.

How was the initial setup?

Setup was easy and straightforward.

What about the implementation team?

An in-house team implemented it.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Have a look at the HP UFT pricing model; it’s changed.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We also evaluated Smart Bear’s TestComplete.

What other advice do I have?

It is a great alternative, and has outstanding object recognition & functionality.

License cost, ease of implementation, expandability, extensibility, reusability, availability of useful code and knowledge are some of the reasons to consider switching.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user482850
Enterprise DevOps Leader, Program Manager at a media company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
The integration with 3rd party products is useful. It has issues, especially during test automation for which there isn't a direct or easy solution.

What is most valuable?

The integration with the third party products. Whether it's the mobile products or others, it is really helpful. Additionally, the HPE mobile solution integration that it provides is really helpful. Open source tools like Selenium and APM don't have easy integration into other mobile solutions.

How has it helped my organization?

A key benefit, obviously, is in terms of effort savings that we have achieved using UFT. We have used it for different projects across different business units within the enterprise. That's really the key for UFT.

What needs improvement?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I's pretty stable but obviously it has many issues that come up, especially during test automation for which you don't have a direct or easy solution. Then you have to go back to the product team or to forums and analyze it. I think HPE should look into these areas.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

UFT is pretty much scalable in terms of Windows desktop and mobile platforms; but when it comes to Mac, it only supports Safari. I want it to support Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Mac. If UFT can't provide that, then at least LeanFT should provide that support. I believe it's in the roadmap but it will take a lot of time.

How are customer service and technical support?

6-7/10 as there have been at least a couple of examples where it took a lot of time because we have to go back and forward with the product team and then to other teams within HPE. By the time we resolve the issue, it usually takes a lot of time. That was the observation, at least for a couple of key examples. Then we also had to put a lot of effort in. We finally got it resolved but I think if they could speed up the process.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We have been using it for a long time, since it was called QTP.

How was the initial setup?

The complexity was pretty much okay, it's acceptable, so that was good. Once you implement the infrastructure within the organization, the complexity is pretty much similar to any other automation tool.

What other advice do I have?

Definitely use UFT because it's a proven solution. You can at least use it for Windows desktop, or if you have mobile solutions whether it's HPE or any other mobile solutions which UFT integrates with that, it's a beautiful solution, although it has inherent problems, but you can work with that along with the HPE team.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user485034
Software QA Lead at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
The number of technologies works for us because our internal customers use the tool for testing a lot of different applications.

Valuable Features

I would say the most valuable is that we can get people started off really quickly on solutions because we've been partners with HPE for a long time and it helps us tailor the product to ours needs. When we have issues with something we can get support directly from HPE since we paid for it.

The fact that it works with a vast number of technologies works for us because our internal customers use the tool for testing a lot of different applications. That's probably the best feature that it has for us.

Improvements to My Organization

There's a lot of centralized testing from some perspectives and our main goal is to provide for a bunch of different groups at a lower cost so we centralize licensing and distribute it to various people. The biggest benefit of that is that it allows us to empower the people that need the solutions instead of manually having them develop the solutions on their own.

Stability Issues

In the past three years it's become a lot more stable. Prior to that, we saw a lot of issues with stability and a lot of patching and concern from our internal customers that they couldn't rely on the tool to always be there when they needed it.

Scalability Issues

We don't scale it out on as large of a basis as ALM.

Customer Service and Technical Support

Our biggest issue was in the switch over from HP Inc. to HPE. I think we had some trouble getting in touch with higher level support so we spent a lot of time going through basic support where the people that work with the tools have a lot of experience with the tools. We think that it would be better if we could bypass the lowest levels of support on some issues. I can understand the process that we usually have to go through but more recently our reps have been helpful in getting us to the people that we need quicker so we can get a resolution.

Other Advice

Over the years, it's really gotten a lot better. The patches come out a lot more frequently now. It supports the technologies we need. HPE is currently working with us to expand the support in an area that it doesn't currently have. I guess I wouldn't go any higher than that because it's been a long time coming for it to get to that point.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Deva Veluchamy
Test Automation Lead/Consultant at Aspire Systems
Consultant
Top 20
Supports desktop, web and mobile product automation. Various formats of reporting support should be possible.

Valuable Features:

- Built in object repository and storing elements.

- Less coding experience.

- Reporting dashboards.

- Supports desktop, web and mobile product automation.

- Continuous integration is possible with QC and Jenkins.

- Good customer support.

Room for Improvement:

- 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.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user469161
Micro Focus ALM/Mobile Center/UFT Administrator/Software Quality Analyst III at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
Capable tool compared to Selenium or other testing tools available.

Valuable Features

It helps us consolidate our efforts. All of our projects are in there. We are also in the life science domain so we have many more compliance requirements which we have to adhere to. It has helped us automate our testing. We have also integrated it with our other tools such as JIRA and TFS. It's pretty good so far.

Room for Improvement

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.

Stability Issues

It's stable

Scalability Issues

It's very scalable, a very robust kind of solution and we recommend it to anyone who's looking for a testing automation kind of tool.

Customer Service and Technical Support

We use an HPE partner for our support needs, but tickets do go to HPE eventually, level two, level three. We have never had an issue.

Initial Setup

It's very straightforward.

Other Advice

UFT is a very mature product, but again, changes. This is a highly fast-paced, fast rolling field, and you have to keep up the pace with them. There are a lot of open source testers, and they do the job. UFT is a very capable tool compared to Selenium or other test tools available on the market. It can do the job is it cost effective? Investment is definitely on the higher side initially in terms of licensing cost.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user468276
QA Technical Lead at a consumer goods company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
We've been able to ramp up non-technical users and have them understand how to do general debugging.

What is most valuable?

UFT provides us with solid automation for our test cases.

How has it helped my organization?

Its ease of use means we've been able to ramp up non-technical users and have them understand how to do general debugging very easily.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using it for around three and a half years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

For the most part UFT has been pretty good. Getting it to interact with ALM nicely has been a challenge for us sometimes.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's been able to scale to our needs.

How are customer service and technical support?

Good, sometimes a little slow, but overall pretty good.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We didn't have any other solution in place, and needed to have a much better solution than doing testing with Excel files.

How was the initial setup?

It's straightforward.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

HPE was one of the very few vendors that we actually had on the list. We went with HPE because my boss actually was very familiar with the product, and felt it fits our organizations needs extremely well.

What other advice do I have?

Give it a shot, if you take the time to invest in it, it works.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
ITCS user
Project Manager at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Consultant
We're able to automate both Windows and web applications form a single console. The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#.

Pros and Cons

  • "The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
  • "The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."

Valuable Features

The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP). Also the feature for automating both Windows and web applications form a single console is not bad.

Improvements to My Organization

My previous organization used UFT extensively for automation more than 500 complex end to end regression tests with considerable savings in time and effort. We were able to achieve that with high degree of reusability.

Room for Improvement

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.

Use of Solution

I've been using it for more than 10 years.

Deployment Issues

There were no issues with the deployment.

Stability Issues

We did have a few instances of browser crashing as well as the product crashing. While the product crashing was resolved with 4 GB of memory, the issue with browser crashing still happened with IE 11 and 12 browsers and no resolution was found.

Scalability Issues

UFT is pretty late to support latest versions of IE. Also I have seen a marked decrease in execution speed while the scripts grow.

Customer Service and Technical Support

I have not interacted directly with HP on the product support.

Initial Setup

UFT setup is pretty straightforward.

Implementation Team

We did it in-house.

Pricing, Setup Cost and Licensing

It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly.

Other Solutions Considered

No other options were looked as we went straight ahead into UFT.

Other Advice

Go for the cheaper option of Selenium if your requirement is purely browser based testing. If not, go for UFT.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user347685
Sr. QA Engineer at a retailer with 501-1,000 employees
Vendor
I was able to reduce regression and functional test times by 80%, but creating a framework that can be reused across other tests is complex and time consuming.

What is most valuable?

It allows me to perform all in one place--

  • Regression tests (tests which check that the existing functionality of an application still works as it should after other parts of the application have been modified),
  • Functional tests (to verify a specific action or function of code), and
  • Service testing (automated testing protocol)

How has it helped my organization?

I was able to reduce regression and functional test times by 80%.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've used it for three to four years.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

I didn't encounter any issues with deployment.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

When debugging code in UFT, it would crash, freeze and hang a lot.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We had no issues with scalability.

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service:

6/10

Technical Support:

8/10

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We previously used Selenium Webdriver.

What about the implementation team?

We implemented it with our in-house team.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

HP UFT cost a lot and there are other free tools that can do the same and much more.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I joined the company after the decision was made to use HP UFT.

What other advice do I have?

If cost is not an issue, then UFT can be considered. There are other tools on the market that can do the same for less.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user379695
Engineer at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
Vendor
For us, object recording is the most valuable and most used feature.

What is most valuable?

For us, object recording is the most valuable and most used feature.

How has it helped my organization?

We've used it just during a Proof of Concept period.

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

I used 11.5 two years ago, and I just updated to 12.51 one month ago, but I have not really used it yet.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

There were no issues with the deployment.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

There were no issues with the stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

There were no issues with the scalability.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I

What is most valuable?

For us, object recording is the most valuable and most used feature.

How has it helped my organization?

We've used it just during a Proof of Concept period.

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

I used 11.5 two years ago, and I just updated to 12.51 one month ago, but I have not really used it yet.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

There were no issues with the deployment.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

There were no issues with the stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

There were no issues with the scalability.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We previously used Selenium. Our clients choose their IDEs and I integrate for them.

How was the initial setup?

It's hard to install the license seat because the web-based GUI is not user friendly.

What about the implementation team?

I implement it with in-house teams.

What other advice do I have?

The add-on I am using has limited resource on-line that makes it a challenge to use. Compared to Selenium, I prefer Selenium. However, I may want to see HPMC before I can make better suggestions.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: We're partners.
it_user378180
SAP Consultant at KCA Deutag
Consultant
It allows us to use one set of tests for all systems.

What is most valuable?

We have multiple SAP systems and clients. UFT allows us to use one set of tests for all systems.

How has it helped my organization?

We are a worldwide organization with a complex financial authorization matrix. When changes were made to this matrix, we provided automated test scripts. More than 20,000 tests were executed in 1 week.

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using it for three years. Our primary system is SAP and we use UFT through SAP Solution Manager as a third-party testing tool.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

Again, we had issues with deployment and the integration into Solution Manager. These are mostly resolved and the current situation is stable.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

There were no issues with the stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

There were no issues with the scalability.

How are customer service and technical support?

We do not have a direct support contract with HP. Our license is through SAP. Customer support is 10/10 for HP and 8/10 for SAP, but improving.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

This is my first involvement with automated testing software.

How was the initial setup?

The initial set up was straightforward once we cleared up some communication issues. The first end-to-end automated test was functional within a week.

What about the implementation team?

We implemented it through a SAP team, but now manage all maintenance and upgrades internally.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The license for this product is provided through our support contract with SAP. Any other product would incur additional license costs.

What other advice do I have?

My only experience is with the product fully integrated with SAP. We are not licensed to use this as a standalone product we must connect to SAP.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user377535
Sr. SDET (Framework Architect) at a retailer with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
The test execution time cycle was reduced from weeks to hours. The ability to run multiple Lean FT or UFT tests in parallel on the same machine is needed.

Valuable Features

The most valuable features of UFT to me are:

  • UFT best supports automation of desktop based applications like AS400 apps, Java apps, SAP application, etc.
  • UFT comes with built-in test frameworks like BPT. Using these frameworks test development can be started within no time.
  • Lean FT provides the flexibility to the users to code in Java.
  • UFT provides the flexibility to run the same tests against a variety of browsers like Chrome, Firefox and IE.

Improvements to My Organization

Manual execution of tests is always time consuming. With the help of UFT, the test execution time cycle was reduced from weeks to hours. This is essentially a giant leap. UFT framework enables to do easy and quick fixes to tests so that automation suite can still be run in case of changes in application. This feature is essentially very important for agile projects.

Room for Improvement

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

Use of Solution

I have been using HP UFT/QTP for the last 10 years.

Deployment Issues

There were no issues with the deployment.

Scalability Issues

UFT or Lean FT tests can only execute only one test on one machine. When the number of automation tests are very high, say 5000 to 10000, even with eight to 10 licenses, UFT can take over 24 hours for execution. This is unacceptable in agile projects. The regression test execution time is expected to be less than one hour for any agile project.

Customer Service and Technical Support

Customer Service:

The customer service is prompt.

Technical Support:

The technical support do not answer the questions to the point.

Initial Setup

The initial set-up of UFT is quick and easy. The set-up instructions are straightforward and easy to understand. However, for a few applications such as AS400 and POS, the set-up requires a few installation steps to be followed in a specific sequence. If this is missed, then UFT may not recognize application objects at all.

Implementation Team

I will always recommend setting up an in-house team with one test automation lead, one test automation architect and rest automation developers. However, if a vendor team offers a more cost effective solution, then the same team structure is to be implemented at their site.

ROI

For the QTP/UFT projects I have worked on ROI is always over 300% in the long term.

Pricing, Setup Cost and Licensing

UFT offers a variety of licenses like seat licenses and concurrent licenses. If the automation team is small, say two to four, and fixed, node locked seat licenses would be preferable. Else, it is always advisable to go with concurrent licenses.

Other Solutions Considered

I have evaluated multiple paid and open source tools. I have evaluated paid tools like IBM Rational Functional Tester, TestComplete, Ranorex, Microsoft UI Automation, etc. Among these, HP UFT always tend to have better support for enterprise wide applications. However, if the requirement is to automate only a few applications, other tools can be considered. For web based application automation, Selenium WebDriver (open source) is the best automation tool.

Other Advice

It is always advisable to set the expectations right before starting any automation activity. Automation ROI is always negative for the first few months. The actual dividends of implementing automation will be reaped in the long term only. Also, automation is a continuous development/maintenance project same as application development. Without test maintenance, automated tests will not be useful in future.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
ITCS user
QTP Analyst (Test Automation Engineer) at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Vendor
Built-in features for database connectivity and SQL queries for data retrieval are a time saver.

Valuable Features:

  • The most valuable thing in my opinion is the ease of moving objects for storage from AUT into the object repository and handling them. 
  • Also, built-in features for database connectivity and SQL queries for data retrieval are a time saver. This eliminates the need for descriptive programming and writing huge chunks of code for relatively simple tasks. 
  • Step delay and object sync options are also a very useful feature.

Improvements to My Organization:

  • It saves time and manpower. Test development and maintenance are faster and easier thanks to UFT. 
  • Also, one tool covers several projects developed in different technologies while the approach to test design can remain the same. A relatively small team of trained professionals can cover a wide range of tests. 
  • Due to UFT’s popup messages for errors and test execution results viewer, it is very simple to analyze the test results and figure out what went wrong, reducing the time needed for defect detection and test updates.

Room for Improvement:

  • 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.

Use of Solution:

We use UFT only for our own test automation needs.

Deployment Issues:

We haven't had any issues with deployment.

Stability Issues:

See the stability issues we had above.

Scalability Issues:

We've scaled it for our needs.

Other Advice:

My advice would be to find at least one experienced automation developer who previously worked with UFT to provide practical know-how to others when implementing it for the first time. 

Learning the basics is easy and intuitive when you receive a proper training. But using UFT the wrong way can turn out to be cost ineffective. UFT is an expensive tool that can save you a lot of time and effort and provide great value for money if used correctly, but also turn out as ineffective related to value-for-money if used the wrong way. 

YouTube tutorials are not the best way of training people for using this tool, the best way is finding people who already have experience to work with it or provide proper training for employees who have never worked with it.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user364419
Senior QA Engineer with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
The ability to run repeatable tests unattended during off hours saves lots of manual testing hours. I would like to see IDE improvements, some of which are addressed in recent versions.

Valuable Features

I've found the most valuable feature to be the ease of object identification using the products spy tool.

Improvements to My Organization

As with any test automation tool, the ability to run repeatable tests unattended during off hours saves lots of manual testing hours.

Room for Improvement

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.

Use of Solution

I've used it for three years.

Stability Issues

The application will occasionally crash or be unable to reach the License Server which causes test suites to fail.

Customer Service and Technical Support

The tech support is pretty good. Compared to Micro Focus’s SilkTest, it is much better. Although I haven’t used SilkTest in about 5 years so it may have improved.

Initial Setup

I was not involved in the evaluation of this product. I inherited it.

ROI

I don’t really have information on the pricing/licensing as I wasn’t involved in that and wouldn’t be able to comment on the ROI. This solution has been in place for about five years and the tests are pretty reliable so I would think it has a pretty good ROI, but just guessing.

Other Solutions Considered

This solution probably wouldn't be my first choice. I have used Silk Test and Selenium. Selenium would probably be my first choice due to the high ROI, reliability, being able to have a IDE choice and support of multiple languages.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
ITCS user
Senior Automation QA Engineer at a tech vendor with 501-1,000 employees
Vendor
It's easy to use so the QA team is not required to have much programming skills.

What is most valuable?

Object repository Supported keywords API testing

How has it helped my organization?

UFT is easy to use so the QA team is not required to have much programming skills. VBScript language is also an advantage that it has.

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using it for two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It often crashes.

How are customer service and technical support?

6/10 - I posted questions on the HP forum and mostly received no feedback. I also saw that people post questions and help each other.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I used Mercury…

What is most valuable?

  • Object repository
  • Supported keywords
  • API testing

How has it helped my organization?

UFT is easy to use so the QA team is not required to have much programming skills. VBScript language is also an advantage that it has.

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using it for two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It often crashes.

How are customer service and technical support?

6/10 - I posted questions on the HP forum and mostly received no feedback. I also saw that people post questions and help each other.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I used Mercury QuickTest Pro 8.2 for three years. I still use IBM Rational Robot, TestComplete, and some frameworks based on Selenium WebDriver.

How was the initial setup?

Everything is readable and easy to understand.

What about the implementation team?

We did it in-house.

What other advice do I have?

Open-source automated testing engines are also good.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user357675
Software Test Specialist at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
The Object Spy feature is the most valuable to us because we can spy on controls in our mobile application and view their properties and values. I'd like a quicker version of it.

What is most valuable?

The Object Spy in UFT is very valuable for spying on controls in our mobile application and viewing their properties and values.

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using it for two years. Each project is different, and it is sometimes two months or six months at once.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

I haven't encountered any issues with deployment.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's stable, and there's no issues with instability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We've scaled just fine, and there's no issues here.

How are customer

What is most valuable?

The Object Spy in UFT is very valuable for spying on controls in our mobile application and viewing their properties and values.

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using it for two years. Each project is different, and it is sometimes two months or six months at once.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

I haven't encountered any issues with deployment.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's stable, and there's no issues with instability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We've scaled just fine, and there's no issues here.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support was very helpful and good.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I used different tools and a different solution, e.g. Selenium in a previous company. I didn’t choose this product as it was in place when I joined.

How was the initial setup?

It was already in place when I got here, so I don't know if the initial setup was straightforward or complex.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user358305
Testing Coordinator at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Consultant
​The process has helped reduce time and cost when it comes to testing a new project. The application can be buggy at times.

What is most valuable?

It is simple to record new automated scripts with the products record function. It makes the process easier since the application converts the recording into code, which you can then alter and configure to your specification.

How has it helped my organization?

The process has helped my organization greatly reduce time and cost when it comes to testing a new project. We created automated generic scripts that can test more quickly and efficiently than manually testing.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using it for a year

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

Deployment was simple.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of the product was questionable at times, but not enough to where it hindered our work.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's scalability was very flexible.

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer service was helpful and knowledgeable

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I did not use any different solutions or evaluate any others. This product was determined by upper management.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy to load and you're allowed to select the specific plugins you need to use with your applications.

What about the implementation team?

We implemented it in-house since it wasn’t a large-scale implementation. I don’t have much advice or implementation since it's straightforward.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user366027
Test Automation Specialist at a retailer with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
We were doing quarterly releases as well as maintenance releases, which is quite a lot. So this solution has saved us a lot of effort and expense.

Valuable Features:

It's great to be able to go from one company to another and each one uses UFT similarly. It's also extremely versatile, in that you can pretty much use it with any type of application.

Improvements to My Organization:

It allows us to automate hundreds of test cases that would normally have to be manually tested. The tests are also extremely reliable so it saves a lot of time on analysis. That's really the first and foremost benefit for us. We were doing quarterly releases as well as maintenance releases, which is quite a lot. So this solution has saved us a lot of effort and expense.

Room for Improvement:

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.

Deployment Issues:

It's deployed without any issues for us.

Stability Issues:

It's fairly stable, but the problem is that it's not always updated and current. When something new comes up, it takes HP a long time to support it.

Scalability Issues:

Scalability depends on the user. UFT is basically a sandbox and will be as flexible as you make it. So scalability can be high, but there are things that work against it. You're bound by the licensing structure, so in order to get bigger benefits, you have to have multiple copies. If you want to fun multiple simultaneous tests, you have to have the licensing to do that, and that costs a ton of money.

Other Solutions Considered:

A lot of people are moving away from the big intertools. So people look at products all the time, and every time the budget comes up or every time they tell me to cut expenses or every time they get frustrated with it, a lot of the small-time tools and open-source tools get attention. So I've been evaluating those.

Other Advice:

If you're an HP shop, you're probably going to go out and buy it. But I don't think new customers will sign on to replace, for example, Selenium. There are plenty of open-source options, and people who know how to implement UFT already know how to implement open-source codes. So I think that people who are using open source will stick with open source, and people who have significant investment inHP will stick with HP.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
ITCS user
Test Automation Specialist with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
It gets along well with LoadRunner and ALM, and blends together with the ALM suite. It's rather slow in execution, running modular strips slower than other tools.

Valuable Features

UFT is easy to use for functional testing, so for me it’s very important that it can travel across a large range of technologies. We can use the same tool for all the different kinds of automation that we do.

Improvements to My Organization

We’re already using LoadRunner and ALM. UFT gets along well with these other solutions, blending together with the ALM suite.

Room 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.

Stability Issues

It's not always very stable, but that depends on how you implement it in your organization. We put it on a separate server host in Singapore managed by our guys in Bangalore, so they make sure that they’re always available first.

Scalability Issues

Scalability is not that important for UFT since it’s not used by so many people at the same time. For us, there's only a few guys performing performance tests so scalability is not a big issue.

Customer Service and Technical Support

Technical support is quite good, though sometimes it depends on who you’re dealing with. Sometimes you get bad luck and get a guy who doesn't know much about it, is new, or is in training, but most of the time it’s all right.

Initial Setup

It was rather easy and you really can do it yourself.

Other Advice

Ask a good HP expert how you need to do it and they'll tell you how to do it.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user357576
Test Automation Engineer at a healthcare company with 501-1,000 employees
Vendor
It bridges the coding gap by using VBScript, which is easier for less technical personnel to pick up.

Valuable Features

The ability to customize automation using code is the most valuable feature. With the release of 12.5, UFT now includes a LeanFT license which will plug in to Visual Studio and allow usage with C#.

A close second would be the Object Spy, i.e. how UFT identifies objects. Although you can code with CodedUI and Selenium, the object identification tool in UFT is far superior.

Improvements to My Organization

Due to cost, my current employer doesn’t use UFT. However, I’ve used it at many different locations in the past. Automation in general will always provide value in test coverage. UFT bridges the coding gap by using VBScript, which is easier for less technical personnel to pick up. This greatly increases the number those people who can use the tool. The competition will require a developer-level skill set to get the same functional benefits.

Room for Improvement

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.

Use of Solution

I’ve used UFT for just over 12 years. In comparison, I’ve used CodedUI for about six months, and Selenium for only two months. As you may imagine, I have a significant grasp on UFT and what it can do. An argument could be made that with the same experience in the other two competitors, these tools may be on more equal footing.

Scalability Issues

As with any code base, well-designed and implemented automation code will make for easy maintenance, and a stable code base that will scale very well as the complexity of the suite grows. Nothing will save you from poor coding practices.

Customer Service and Technical Support

I’ve had little direct support from HP. I’ve instead used HP partners to get licensing and support. Specifically Orasi, they have been very helpful in the few support areas I’ve needed. I would rate them 9/10. As an advanced user, there are issues I’ve come across that Orasi wasn’t able to find a solution for. However, they did their due diligence and escalated to HP as appropriate.

Initial Setup

It is very straightforward in its install and setup. An extra layer of complexity exists when trying to integrate it with Quality Center, but this is done via some settings and an add-in. The nice thing about UFT is that it’s a mature tool that has massive user-forum support on the internet. Although there is a lot of support for C# (Coded UI) and Java (Selenium), there isn’t as much in regards to the testing side of those languages.

Pricing, Setup Cost and Licensing

Cost is the biggest issue with UFT. It is not cheap. However, when evaluating the full cost (not just the licensing), I believe UFT is actually a cheaper solution in the end. That being said, seat licenses that are tied to a specific machine (can be moved via support) run approximately $10,000 with tax and associated annual maintenance agreement. A concurrent license runs approximately 17K with tax and maintenance agreement.

From an ROI standpoint, you need to look at the automation effort in comparison to the manual work it would reduce, as well as increased code coverage and a consistent level of testing. In most cases, it will take 2-3 years before the automation suite is significant enough to start seeing its cost even out. Any organization contemplating automation should have that type of commitment to see the automation effort become successful.

Other Solutions Considered

I’ve evaluated a few different automation products. Only Selenium and CodedUI come close to the functionality and adaptability that UFT provides. I support UFT as the best solution due to the skill set needed to operate the tool. VBScript is verbose, but otherwise very easy for a non-coder to pick up. Selenium and CodedUI both require OOP languages that are more complex for the tester to pick up.

Overall my main concern, is with resources. There aren’t as many Selenium/CodedUI professionals in the marketplace therefore when it’s time to deal with turnover, it’s very difficult to find experienced automation personnel. That is not the case with UFT. An added plus for UFT is how it handles poorly designed and implemented web applications. I didn’t fully see this until I began to use CodedUI and Selenium.

Other Advice

If this is the first time implementing a solution, I would say make sure to read up on what it will take to implement. Get as much knowledge ahead of time to make it smoother. To hit the ground running, it is best to organize your manual tests so that automation can begin as soon as possible. What test cases are for Smoke tests? What test cases are for Regression? Starting automation without defining the work to be completed will waste precious time -- time you are paying for idle licensing.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user363267
Test Manager at a energy/utilities company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
It's the only automation technology that our core application, which is a bit special and resistant to automation, supports.

Valuable Features

The core application that we're using in our company is a bit special and resistant to automation. To properly to automate, it needs a plug-in from the software's vendor. The only technology for automation that is supported is UFT, so we're sort of locked into UFT for our core application.

Improvements to My Organization

UFT is the only technology that enabled us to actually automate our core application.

Room for Improvement

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

Deployment Issues

We've had no issues with deployment.

Stability Issues

For us, we started with version 9 of UFT when it was called QTP, QuickTest Pro. For us it worked, though, like the average software, there are issues, but we always had a good ability to provide work arounds. Regardless, it's been pretty stable.

Scalability Issues

We've had no issues with scalability.

Customer Service and Technical Support

We haven't needed much technical support as we can sort it out ourselves.

Initial Setup

Some parts of it were pretty easy to set up. Most of the issues we had were related to organizational stuff, such as managing licenses, etc.

Other Advice

Make sure you take a good look at your approach, such as whether it's keyword driven automation, etc. Make sure you organize things that you're headed in the right direction because once you implement in a certain way, changing direction may be pretty hard. Determine also how you deal with object repositories, how you deal with sharing information, and how important the reusability of scripts is in your project.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user360525
Senior Analyst at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Vendor
A lot of our projects are repeatable, so using it with ALM, we can learn from the previous projects and determine which changes need to made for subsequent ones.

Valuable Features

It allows us to track projects from a defect management perspective so that we can learn from each project. A lot of our projects are repeatable, so using it with ALM, we can learn from the previous projects and determine which changes need to made for subsequent ones. Each time we have such a project, it goes faster than the previous. There are less issues with them each time because we've tracked the previous defects.

Improvements to My Organization

We've improved deploying in large environments on the client side. Desktop security has also improved as the feature functionalities of the installed client comes back to the the environment. Because we've improved the deployment, security has then also improved.

Room for Improvement

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.

Use of Solution

UFT/QTP has been in place for probably about 10 years.

Deployment Issues

Once installed, it deploys without any issue.

Stability Issues

UFT is extremely stable. We've never had any issues with it.

Scalability Issues

There's no block of scalability as it's a client application. It's managed centrally from a license-server perspective. Scalability can be as many installs as you want. From our perspective, the actual number of people that can use it concurrently is controlled by the license server, so there's no issues of scalability on that side.

Customer Service and Technical Support

We have the higher level, premium support. Technical support tends to be quick and reactive to issues and we don't have any major issues with it.

Initial Setup

It was straightforward, but there were typical issues, such as the normal configuration issues that you can predict, or you have to configure it to talk to the license server.

Other Advice

My advice would be to research the full system requirements you need for the initial install. In corporate environments, once you've got it up and running, it's more difficult to get off of it. Also, plan to scale up based on projected CPU and space that you'll need to get.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user348159
Consultant I at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Consultant
We can synchronize with QC, and API automation tests can be placed into test suites and run automatically through the QC scheduler. There are times, however, when it freezes and locks out the user.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature for me is API Tests for SOAP automation testing.

How has it helped my organization?

With HP UFT, we're able to synchronize with HP Quality Center, and API automation tests can be placed into test suites and run automatically through the HP Quality Center scheduler. Results for the tests are set and HP Quality Center is able to report on the test results. Emails can then be sent to notify anyone of the results in real time.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've used it for two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The only time I encountered tool issues was when the servers to our ALM database was down.

How are customer service and technical support?

I personally have never had to deal with customer service or technical support. We have an administrator assigned to that task.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

SOAPUI Pro and ReadyAPI were used for API testing. HP UFT was used in conjunction when automation needed to be set up. With the synchronization with HP Quality Center, HP UFT saved time.

How was the initial setup?

I was not a part of the initial set up. Installing the tool on my machine was straightforward based on my company’s instructions.

What was our ROI?

My company is very firefighting friendly, so the ROI was immense when it came to automation and the amount of time it took to get test suites and regression set up. The amount of test cases a user can create in a short amount of time is incredible.

The ROI is variable depending on the size of the team, the amount of usage they plan on using the tool, and the budget they have on tools, training, and support.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I do not know the exact numbers my company paid for the licenses, but from what I heard on the grapevine, only seat licenses were bought when absolutely necessary and floating licenses were bought for everything else.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user347658
Analyst Programmer at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
We can use it to improve the productivity for some repeatable routine tasks, but there was a Java conflict during setup.

Valuable Features

It's allowed us to perform functional testing (to verify a specific action or function of code) for each product update.

Improvements to My Organization

We can use HP UFT not only in testing for each product update(s), but also to improve the productivity for some repeatable routine tasks.

Room for Improvement

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

Use of Solution

I've used it for two years.

Deployment Issues

Our initial deployment was complex and there was a Java conflict we had to resolve.

Stability Issues

We've had no issues with stability.

Scalability Issues

We've had no scalability issues.

Customer Service and Technical Support

We don't use HP technical support.

Initial

Valuable Features

It's allowed us to perform functional testing (to verify a specific action or function of code) for each product update.

Improvements to My Organization

We can use HP UFT not only in testing for each product update(s), but also to improve the productivity for some repeatable routine tasks.

Room for Improvement

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

Use of Solution

I've used it for two years.

Deployment Issues

Our initial deployment was complex and there was a Java conflict we had to resolve.

Stability Issues

We've had no issues with stability.

Scalability Issues

We've had no scalability issues.

Customer Service and Technical Support

We don't use HP technical support.

Initial Setup

The setup was complex as we were required to have Windows updated. Also, there was apparently a Java conflict that had to be resolved first.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
ITCS user
Principal Consultant with 51-200 employees
Vendor
It's allowed business analysts to work with automation scripts without requiring them to have programming knowledge. A scanning feature, however, would help reduce the time in maintaining scripts.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable features to me are--

  • Business process components (can be dropped into test flow)
  • Keyword-driven test cases (one of several automated testing frameworks)

How has it helped my organization?

It's allowed business analysts to work with automation scripts without requiring them to have programming knowledge.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've used it for six years.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

I did not encounter any issues with deployment.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Yes, there were stability issues sometimes.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service:

Customer service is excellent.

Technical Support:

Technical support is good.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We didn't use any previous solutions.

How was the initial setup?

Initial setup was straightforward.

What about the implementation team?

We used an in-house team for implementation.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It's expensive, but it's worth the money.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We didn't evaluate any other options.

What other advice do I have?

HP UFT is a popular tool used by many organizations, hence there are many forums out there to help us in case we face any challenges.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
ITCS user
Managing Director at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Consultant
It provides us with service testing, API testing, GUI testing and business process testing, although it needs better compatibility with Chrome and Safari.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature to me are the high-end automation frameworks -- linear, hybrid, data-driven, keyword-driven, BPT, and functional decomposition.

How has it helped my organization?

It works with both desktop and web-based applications.

It also provides us with service testing, API testing, GUI testing and business process testing.

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

I've used it for six years.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

I had no issues with deployment.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I've had no stability issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We've scaled without issue.

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service:

Customer service is excellent.

Technical Support:

Technical support is excellent.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We didn't use a previous solution.

How was the initial setup?

The installation process of this software is very well organized. Here, all the prerequisites/supporting software are part of setup and it automatically configures your system for the best use during the installation. If in one or more parameters are missing the latest updates, it performs those updates automatically.

What about the implementation team?

We did it in-house, and I was a part of this team. You need to make sure to demonstrate to team members the proper tools for installation so they can follow the various concepts and then arrange for proper training to be given to all users for the best use of it. I believe that a well-trained person/team can solve issues with HP UFT by themselves.

What was our ROI?

It's fast, reliable, and accurate, and should provide ROI.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I am aware of other tools on the market, but I found HP UFT best suited to my needs. We, therefore, adopted it.

What other advice do I have?

If one is looking for a software testing tool for functional parameters with an automation approach, they can go for it without any more thinking and discussion. Where there are a few up and coming open source solutions, they have limitations that HP UFT doesn't have.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: We are a certified training partner to HP Enterprise for their global training needs for HP UFT and other tools.
it_user347655
Assistant System Engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
It's helped us reduce the time to automate 3500 test cases down to five days, whereas manually it would have taken 30 days. However, the cross-browser testing feature should be improved.

What is most valuable?

The features I've found most valuable are--

  • API
  • GUI

How has it helped my organization?

We have performed 3500 test case automations, and we are able to execute them in just five days. If we were to do this manually, it would take 30 days.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using it for a year.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

HP UFT consumes too much RAM, so the system gets hung.

How are customer service and technical support?

It's 90%.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Initially, we started doing automation using Selenium, but we could not succeed with it, so we migrated from Selenium to HP UFT. We now have a successful solution.

How was the initial setup?

We faced a lot of problems during implementations, such as objection identification and cross-browser functionalities.

What about the implementation team?

We implemented with our in-house team.

What was our ROI?

The ROI is good.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The cost of the HP UFT license is more.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user347646
Senior Technical Engineer with 1,001-5,000 employees
MSP
We just finished implementing an automation framework with over 600 tests using UFT.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable aspects to me are its versatility and how powerful it is with all the add-ins for so many different platforms.

I love working with database testing with the tool. I also love how UFT can run functional tests on the UI, then execute tests against a web or REST service, then it can use data from the database to test against the front end, and it can finish the test run by kicking off performance testing for the same application.

And all of that can be done from the QC/ALM tool so defects can be linked back to requirements and test cycles.

How has it helped my organization?

We do consulting, training and mentoring with the HP tool set, including UFT, so it is kind of our bread and butter. There are a lot of options with the tool. We just finished implementing an automation framework with over 600 tests using UFT.

Last week, I mentored another customer in how to use the tool with their team so they can start automating their tests.

We use it in a lot of different ways. I used it to build a script that automatically checks me in if I have a flight with Southwest to help me get a better boarding group, so it helps with my travel too.

The product is so robust by itself, testing both GUI and backend processes in conjunction with other tools like Loadrunner and ALM. The UFT tool can be such a huge boon to a testing organization that can commit to its use. Over time there is so much testing that can be taken off of the manual testers hands, allowing them to focus on the more complex testing issues.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've used it for over eight years.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

That is one of the good things about the UFT tool. It is a mature product from a mature company, so while there are issues from time to time with installations, the tool usually deploys without issue.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Stability can be an issue, and the weaker the resources on the machine running UFT the more likely there will be problems.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is not an issue as long as an organization can afford the licenses.

How are customer service and technical support?

Partners who offer support like our company tend to get high marks for that support. HP support is notoriously difficult.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Over the course of my career, I used Rational Robot back before IBM bought them and Silk Test as well as Silk Performer when Segue owned them both. All good tools, but not a fair comparison since I used them so long ago. I will say I loved working with Silk Performer.

How was the initial setup?

There is a wizard for the set-up which I have always found to be simple and straightforward. That same wizard can be used to set up the license server, repair installations, install some add-ins, and some other features. It has always seemed pretty intuitive to me in terms of setting up QTP and UFT.

What about the implementation team?

We generally will implement IR in-house, but then again we train and mentor folks on using these products, so that makes a certain amount of sense.

Read the install notes before you start and make sure your target system meets all the requirements. So often folks call for support when really it was a matter of not reading the installation documentation.

What was our ROI?

Well, ROI will be specific to a customer and their needs, but I can give an example.

We built automation for a company that needed 17 people for 12 or more weeks to run a regression test. That same test can be run in a week with the UFT tool and one or maybe two people to make sure there are no problems with those test runs. I built automation that created test sets, executed tests with those sets, and validated the results for a testing effort that took three people two or more weeks.

Given all that, ROI is really what automation is all about.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

What other advice do I have?

Get training. Being self-taught will leave a lot of frustrating holes that training fills. You can have really bright people but they just won’t know how to use some of the features of the tool because they won’t know those features exist. As a result they can grow frustrated and mistake their lack of knowledge for shortcomings in the product.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user343329
Senior Product Development Engineer with 5,001-10,000 employees
Vendor
We have better evaluation and analysis of defects using UFT integrated with ALM. However, there's not much support provided for automating applications developed on .NET.

What is most valuable?

The GUI automation, mobile testing, UFT, and the application lifecycle management features are the most valuable for my projects.

How has it helped my organization?

This product has increased productivity and quality of testing. It has also reduced manual efforts for performing Regression and Sanity for every new build.

There is also better evaluation and analysis of defects using UFT integrated with ALM.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have used this for more than five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I have faced some issues while running automation scripts. Sometimes loop variable named as “i” do not actually perform its functionality. By changing the variable name the purpose is resolved. The stability of test scripts running is not very good when we change the names of actions.

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service:

9/10 - the team provides solutions as soon as possible through email.

Technical Support:

9/10 - the team provides solutions as soon as possible through email.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I was using Selenium with Java to do automation, but as Selenium could not help me do Windows based application automation, I switched to UFT as a new solution.

How was the initial setup?

The initial step for me was straightforward as I have good technical skills. Therefore, it was easy for me to learn VB scripting and start preparing frameworks for UFT.

What about the implementation team?

I was working in a service-based company as an automation developer. I have implemented all types of frameworks in the banking sector on which I was working.

What was our ROI?

The return on investment for any company buying this product license is 100 percent, as businesses with clients increase productivity when manual tasks becomes faster and efficient by automating them with this tool.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Once the license is purchased, this tool can be used for automating many applications, and can be used by any automation developer working in an organization that has purchased this licensed tool.

What other advice do I have?

This product can be used for automation of websites, windows application, mobile testing and API (Application Programming Interface) test automation.

People who wanted to reduce their efforts for repetitive task can use this product to automate manual tests. This helps increase the reliability and quality of testing.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user341283
Senior Software Quality Assurance Engineer at a tech vendor with 501-1,000 employees
Vendor
It allowed us to provide automation test coverage in various areas of an online web application, including web services. However, it needs CI integration with console logs.

What is most valuable?

I found all the features to be valuable. I can't pinpoint just one. It's just a very useful UI automation testing solution.

How has it helped my organization?

It allowed us to provide automation test coverage in various areas of an online web application, including web services..

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

I've used it for approximately two years.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

No real blockers. The application we were testing was pretty much covered by the tool.

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service:

I didn't need to use them.

Technical Support:

I didn't need to use them.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I have worked with Selenium and TestNG. This product was a customer request.

How was the initial setup?

Depending on the approach you follow, the set-up is complex in different ways. Having an Object Repository that is not stored but built through the run is the most difficult and time consuming task. Custom libraries are also very time consuming to build.

What about the implementation team?

In-house implementation for a customer.

What other advice do I have?

Setting this up from the beginning requires a lot of reading and effort spent. You need an experienced person to set the framework up and it will also take time to implement it so the ROI will be realised in the future.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user341058
Software Test Engineer at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
Vendor
It allowed me to generate script that increased the number of full-process test cases from eight to 100, but when I ran the script for two or three times sequentially, the tool hung.

What is most valuable?

I used almost all the features. To me, the the most valuable features were the OR and code compiler (VB script) to call the framework.

How has it helped my organization?

I worked for Weight Watchers on a diabetes product which had three main modules -- signup, questionnaire, and calendar.

The manual resource was created for eight users for full processing, but after I generated the script, I did the full process for the same test cases for up to 100 users.

What needs improvement?

  • Spy elements
  • OR

For how long have I used the solution?

I used it from February to December 2014.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

No issues encountered.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

When I ran the script for two or three times sequentially, the tool hung and wouldn’t respond.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

There were issues with browsers when supporting more elements such as CSS and HTML.

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service:

8/10 - because they have good technical knowledge and the response is really fast.

Technical Support:

I connected with technical support only a few times, so it is not fair for me to rate them. But for the few times I did, it is 8/10.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I did, and I switched because the newer tools have many features and many options such as browser support, responsive design, and is faster. However, there are free and open source tools.

How was the initial setup?

It was straightforward.

What about the implementation team?

It was done through a vendor team who were mid-level in experience.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The license is expensive.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I came to the company and they were using the tool, but there were other options for them choose to choose from such as Selenium and Node.js.

What other advice do I have?

You need to improve the support browsers and responsive design, and try to use newer and better languages (JS).

Also, check the stability of your product(s) when you run a lot of scripts.

They should reduce the price.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Paul Grossman
Sr. Test Automation Engineer at NORC at the University of Chicago
Real User
By default UFT records and stores all objects in its Object Repository.
Before we start start, let's clear up any confusion new users may have: HP's Unified Functional Tester 12.50 (UFT) is the latest version of the QuickTest Professional (QTP) formerly from Mercury Interactive. They are essentially the same product, in the same way Word 2007 and Word 2013 are the same. There are a few new features, and all the stuff you know and love is still in there. It's just that, for long time users such as myself, someone has tidied up a bit, and I can't find anything. At the end, I will discuss a few things about HP's latest product, LeanFT. Also note that I am organizing these features starting with what beginners can handle, and then what they can leverage as their skills advance. The features that are most valuable in UFT include the built in Excel data table…

Before we start start, let's clear up any confusion new users may have: HP's Unified Functional Tester 12.50 (UFT) is the latest version of the QuickTest Professional (QTP) formerly from Mercury Interactive. They are essentially the same product, in the same way Word 2007 and Word 2013 are the same. There are a few new features, and all the stuff you know and love is still in there. It's just that, for long time users such as myself, someone has tidied up a bit, and I can't find anything. At the end, I will discuss a few things about HP's latest product, LeanFT. Also note that I am organizing these features starting with what beginners can handle, and then what they can leverage as their skills advance.

The features that are most valuable in UFT include the built in Excel data table, the Automatic Object Identification and the Record and Playback feature. That said, I will ask advanced automation engineers to bear with me, as that last answer will have raised huge red flag.

The Excel data tables are visible from the main interface for easy access. UFT can easily load external Excel worksheets to replace any that you have displayed. So if you want to edit them in Excel instead that's perfectly fine. Advanced users can have several test cases in individual Excel files, or as multiple worksheets in a single file. Aside from all the features Excel provides, it also allows design of data-driven tests, keyword-driven tests, and hybrids.

If you ever wonder why UFT licenses are just so darn expensive, it's because the developers bent over backwards to provide the "Kitchen Sink" of object recognition. By default UFT records and stores all objects in its Object Repository. It has at least 15 different add-ins to support multiple technologies, including .Net, Java and even Terminal Emulators. It automatically uses a minimal combination of unique object properties to do this. And in the case where no unique properties can be used, the object index is used as a last resort. However advanced users can also build objects on the fly in code, either with Descriptive Programming or a Descriptive Object. All three approaches support CSS, xPath and Regular Expressions, so that you can reduce maintenance if portions of the object property value changes regularly. There is even a feature to identify objects by image called Insight, and another to create hotspot virtual objects. While these last two are not as reliable as Descriptive Programming, they are there as your options of last resort.

Next, to clarify: Record and Playback should never be the primary way to create automated test scripts. The code is not optimized, and will often be so brittle that it will often take a few attempts to create a script that can simply be executed repeatedly. This can cause new users to inadvertently trash the product online from sheer frustration. Consider this: If you had only a hammer as a tool, would tell the internet it sucks because it's only good for building birdhouses and doghouses, but not suited for completing residential buildings? I should hope not. The best way to look at Record and Playback is as a tool with a few specific purposes: First if you are unfamiliar with the VBScript language syntax, it builds code automatically for you to inspect and learn. Second it comes in handy when first building objects with descriptive programming. It allows you to quickly inspect how UFT would choose to identify an object, if your initial attempts are failing. Lastly it is a good way to quickly create a Proof of Concept, showing that, yes, the tool understands your particular web application.

The best example of improvement within the organization is a closer working relationship with my fellow manual testers. While project managers would like have me automate 100% of everything, and secretly kick their manual testers to the curb, it's simply not possible. To avoid the natural animosity this idea can promote, I work with a manual tester on each regression release. Essentially I work down through a list of the tests I have automated, and they work up executing the remaining manual tests. We both end up in the middle, finishing a job much sooner than expected. We both feel we are an essential part of the team, and we don't feel overwhelmed by the amount of work we are expected to perform.

It also puts us on more even playing field with our Developers. Most of them think I am still just a blackbox manual tester with a tool they view as nothing more than a toy. On several occasions Developers have stated that the defects I have uncovered are caused by the tool itself. I have had accusations that it's my tool that is causing memory leaks, or that it has covertly acquired Local Admin Rights and have changed all manner of random settings. I have found, repeatedly, that I must defend and prove that I don't have the skill, nor the time, to create such fantastical code. After proving two or three items are actually the developer's issues, usually on a system without my tool installed, I generally get some "street cred" with developers. After that point we work together to be more efficient.

Deployment and setup of UFT can't be much simpler.

HP has a policy that software updates for the QTP/UFT products are only available to licensed users with a service agreement. This is fully understandable from a business perspective. However this policy extends beyond version upgrades to software patches, and it backed up by HP's highly paid lawyers. The problem this poses is that any potential customer that downloads the tool for use with a 30-day trial license must work with an unpatched version that is often less stable than the patched version in use by licensed long-term customers. The problem here is that HP wants potential new customers to try their product, but policy prevents them from showcasing that product in the best light, thus shooting themselves financially in the foot. I would sincerely hope HP CEO Meg Whitman, who is a brilliant businesswoman, might have a chance to read this article, recognize the policy flaw, and resolve it for the betterment of her company's bottom line.

That said I would recommend anyone interested trying the tool for the first time to use the latest release of UFT which is 12.50. If you have an earlier version such as 12.02, even with a patch, I would recommend the upgrade as well. This also gives you access to LeanFT at no additional cost which we will discuss shortly.

I would like to see the "double clicking a function in the keyword list takes me to the function source code" changed back to "double click a function keyword takes me to the function reference". I would like to see the person who thought that would be a grand idea removed, to prevent other such grand ideas from taking root in the product.

Seriously I would like to see a Static Code Analysis component added to the product. For those who are unfamiliar with the advantage this tool provides, it is simply this: It scans all your project code all at once, and gives you a list of where all potential errors exist. Which is significantly better than finding errors one at a time at run-time. Amazingly this professional level tool is available on the internet for just about every known programming language... except VBscript. Google it if you don't believe me.

In fact there is paid Static Code Analysis tool specifically for UFT users called Test Design Studio from a third party at patterson-consulting.net. I highly recommend including a license to compliment the HP IDE.

Get the latest patch for UFT.

Don't use more than two Actions. They only serve to needlessly complicate your project. Functions work just as well without the overhead of additional Excel pages that probably with never get populated. Similarly, if you find yourself struggling with the decision to use a Function or a Sub, make it a Function and forget about it.

Don't let the tool organize the folder structure of your project. It's buried pretty deep by default. It's easier if you have a project folder off the root of a drive that contains the folders: Tests, Functions, Environment, Results and Documentation.

Learn what Regular Expressions are and how to use them for simple pattern matching. Don't be put off by their complexity, a basic understanding goes a long way in this field. Much the way a little salt will make a bland soup better, but too much ruins it.

There is a lot of flexibility and functionality in UFT. You can store data in many different places. It does not mean you should try to utilize every one of them. Anyone who has worked with Photoshop, as an example, knows there are a hundred imaging functions, but at most six are all you need to be proficient at it. The same goes for storing data with HFT.

If you can't get the tool to recognize an object on the first day, go make friends with the developer. Show them the list of Add-In support UFT provides and ask them to point out which ones they are using in the environment. Then save them at the last second from being hit by a bus. Some day down the road you will have to call in that favor.

Roll your own results reporter. My results go out to another Excel file with links to screen captures.

LeanFT is a hybrid solution for those who are looking to take advantage of Selenium. You might think one of those advantages might be speed. Because the most commonly used language of Selenium is Java, there is no doubt that it has speed over UFT's VBscript. However, this has about as much meaning in the automation field as noting that a rocket-equipped Jaguar will out-pace a Bugatti on an open stretch of desert road. Bring them into the reality of city driving with streetlights, hairpin curves and pedestrians and speed makes it more likely both car and animal will crash into a building.

The major weakness with Selenium that LeanFT addresses is it's identification of objects. The problem here is that much of the object identification available to Selenium users is hard to decipher, and difficult to maintain, particularly with xPath. Take this example:

//a[contains(text(),'Eggs')], //div[@id='shortcuts']/span/span[2]/a/span

SPAN. SPAN[2]. A. SPAN? This is this an index to an unknown level of HTML code and impossible to maintain when it changes.

LeanFT brings to Selenium many of the object identification techniques noted above that QTP/UFT engineers how been comfortable with for years without being forced to learn the complexities of xPath. This is important to me as I can now port my own custom object recognition technique from UFT directly into Selenium. In addition reporting results can be sent back to HP ALM (formerly Quality Center). LeanFT also has access to other common frameworks like TESTNG and JUNIT, as well as source control tools such as GIT and SVN.

I personally have a relationship with contacts inside HP. Years ago I made the decision to be a Track Speaker at a Mercury World conference in Orlando (which is now HP Discover in Las Vegas and London). My decision was a financial one, I simply could not afford the airfare, the hotel and the ticket into the conference. But I learned that, if accepted, I could at least attend the conference for free. I did this to meet others like myself face to face and maybe get on the inside track. I found ten other people who knew more about this tool than I do, and I am friends with nine of them. At that initial conference I was fortunate enough to sit in on a discussion group about the future of the product. At the end they asked for volunteers for the Beta program and I made sure they had my number.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user251862
Automation Engineer at HealthNow
Vendor
Manual testing time has been reduced. The IDE is very user friendly.

What is most valuable?

The IDE is very user friendly.

How has it helped my organization?

There's less manual testing time, so we are able to quickly resolve any IT issues.

What needs improvement?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It’s in the middle and not always 100% reliable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We've had the same amount of licenses for years now, so we're not exposed to scaling.

How are customer service and technical support?

We use a third-party vendor, and they are very helpful. Any help we’ve ever needed is covered.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

It was already in place when I joined and has always been this solution.

How was the initial setup?

I don’t know, but I think it was fairly straightforward.

What other advice do I have?

Support and reliability are my most important criteria when selecting a solution. Also, I would evaluate its compatibility, and HP seems to be comfortable in not having too much competition in this realm.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user176970
Test Automation Engineer at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Consultant
Improved our ability to test in varied environments and browsers.

What is most valuable?

    1. UFT12 supports IE11, Firefox until v24 and Chrome browser until v30, operating systems and environments
    2. When the test contains any unmapped repository parameter, the Errors pane displays the test name and path in the Item column
    3. UFT12 fully supports the .xlsx format of Excel files for importing data to the Data Table or when specifying an Excel file for use with ALM configurations
    4. The InsightObject.Click method brings the Insight object’s parent test object into focus before performing the click. In some cases, this change of focus may hide your Insight object in the application, making it impossible for UFT to find and click it. In those cases, you can use the new InsightObject.ClickSpecial method, which does not bring the parent test object into focus before clicking
    5. When using Insight to recognize objects, UFT searches for objects on your screen that match a stored test object image. When modifying a test object’s image, you can now specify areas within the image that UFT ignores when searching for a match. This is useful if parts of an object do not always look the same. For example, if different icons are used on different operating systems to run a certain application
    6. Standard VBScript provides the CreateObject function, which enables creating 32-bit COM object references. UFT has added theCreateObject64 statement, enabling you to create 64-bit COM object references
    7. The popular Save with Resources feature from QuickTest is now also available for GUI Tests in UFT. It comes in handy if you need to open or run a test when you do not have access to a network drive or ALM. For example, you may need to create a portable copy of a test for use when traveling to other sites. Using the File > Save (Other) > Save with Resources command, you can save everything you need to a local drive or to another storage device. When you use this option, UFT creates a copy of the test, its resource, and any external actions called by your test, and adjust the references from your test to the resources and external actions so that you can use them locally
    8. The UFT Web Add-in now supports the following additional objects for HTML5 object recognition:
      • WebAudio. Supports recognition of HTML audio objects
      • WebVideo. Supports recognition of HTML5 video objects
      • WebNumber. Supports recognition of HTML5 number objects. These objects may look like numeric edit boxes or up-down spin controls, depending on the browser
      • WebRange. Supports recognition of HTML5 range objects
    9. In previous versions of UFT, if you wanted to test Flex applications, you needed to first compile them specifically for testing. UFT12 includes the UFT Flex Runtime Loader, which you can use to open most of your Flex applications for testing, without having to pre-compile the application. You can use the new Flex tab in the Record and Run Settings dialog box to instruct UFT to open Flex applications at the beginning of a record or run session. In this tab, you specify whether you have prepared the application in advance for testing, or whether UFT should open the application using the Runtime Loader. You can also configure the new Flex Record and Run settings using an automation script
    10. You can define a shortcut key or key combination that stops the current recording session (for GUI tests only) or run operation, even if UFT is not in focus or is in hidden mode. In the Run Sessionspane in the Options dialog box (Tools > Options > General pane > Run Sessions node, click in the Stop command shortcut key field and then press the required key or key combination on the keyboard. The default key combination is CTRL+ALT+F5.
    11. The Run Results Deletion tool is now incorporated into the Run Results Viewer. This enables you to automatically delete test results from tests and business process tests stored on ALM without needing to independently connect the Run Results Deletion tool to ALM.
    12. Testing Extensibility now supports Visual Studio 2010 and Visual Studio 2012. When you run a test that uses a virtualized service, you can now view the service’s details in the run results:
      • The name of the service and location of the deployed service
      • Deployment status of the service
      • The performance and data models used in this test run-time agent mode
      • The data simulation and performance simulation accuracy for the virtualized service in this test run.
    13. A new RunDebug method is available in the Automation Object Model. This method instructs UFT to stop at breakpoints when running a test using automation, whether from ALM or in an automation run.
    14. Using UFT, you can now run GUI tests as well as API tests that use a virtualized service. This enables you to run tests of your application using a service that would otherwise be inaccessible for test runs.
    15. UFT provides Business Process Testing from within UFT, using the native UFT user interface. This enables users to create, maintain, debug, and run BPT tests together with GUI and API tests, providing a single, one-stop-shop product for seamless functional testing.
      • Business process tests and flows are comprised of business components, which can be used to test specific parts of your application modularity. Business components include keyword GUI components, scripted GUI components, and API components
      • If you are familiar with using BPT in ALM, you can use BPT in UFT as follows:
        • Add components and flows to your tests and flows by dragging them from the Toolbox pane to the test or flow opened in the document pane
        • Set parameter promotion options in the BPT Testing tab of the Options dialog box
        • Link and promote parameters in the Component Parameters tab of the Properties pane. Use the other Properties pane tabs to view and modify various test, flow, component, or group details, such as descriptions, fields, and comments
        • Manage component iterations in the Data pane

How has it helped my organization?

  1. Improved our ability to work in different environments and test in different browsers
  2. Ability to calculate the test run and results using ALM
  3. Easy to maintain the requirements and completion of its development and testing process
  4. Improved the level of coding to a higher level

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

I was using the QTP tool for five years and UFT for three months.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

No issues encountered.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

No issues encountered.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

No issues encountered.

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service:

I didn’t get a chance to work with customer service.

Technical Support:

I didn’t get a chance to work with technical support.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

No previous solution was used.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was straightforward.

What about the implementation team?

Implementation was done through a vendor team, and their level of expertise is 9/10.

What other advice do I have?

This tool is good for programming experts.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user69807
Developer at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
The next wave : QTP (I mean UFT) or Selenium?
QTP has ruled the automation tool market in the last decade. There is absolutely no doubt on this. If you have any doubt on this, (I know we are testers, doubting is in our blood. After all, we dont trust developers code as well) gather around 100 manual or automation folks and ask them how many of them have heard about QTP and take the count of who all have raised their hands ( Count it properly, some lazy folks would only raise their hand partially, fearing as if they will be hanged if they raise their hands completely). Now, ask them how many of them have heard about other tools like Watir, Squish, TestComplete, TestPartner, AutomatedQA, AutoIt, MAUI(Shhhhh… This is Microsoft Proprietory tool),Fitnesse, Cucumber, etc. The verdict is out there. QTP has been the King…

QTP has ruled the automation tool market in the last decade. There is absolutely no doubt on this. If you have any doubt on this, (I know we are testers, doubting is in our blood. After all, we dont trust developers code as well) gather around 100 manual or automation folks and ask them how many of them have heard about QTP and take the count of who all have raised their hands ( Count it properly, some lazy folks would only raise their hand partially, fearing as if they will be hanged if they raise their hands completely). Now, ask them how many of them have heard about other tools like Watir, Squish, TestComplete, TestPartner, AutomatedQA, AutoIt, MAUI(Shhhhh… This is Microsoft Proprietory tool),Fitnesse, Cucumber, etc. The verdict is out there. QTP has been the King (or queen or Mount Everest or giant or whatever you call it) in the last decade.

I started my career with automation tool development and still continue to do so. Few years back I was bitten by QTP. Started with 9.2, then 9.5 (First from HP, after it acquired Mercury Interactive Systems), 10.0, 11.0 etc. Though there are several bugs in QTP but HP folks have always managed to release a patch in a jiffy. The problem with QTP is that it is ridiculously over priced per seat license. Quite a tough proposition in this cost conscious world.

Here comes Selenium. No other tool has (ever, ever, ever) came closer to QTP than Selenium. Nowadays, there are many folks discussing about Selenium in various forums/ discussion board. What makes Selenium so much in demand? Selenium (Symbol Se) is a chemical substance having an atomic number 34 in the periodic table (If you dont know what is a periodic table, then probably you were not paying attention in your chemistry subject in school) which is used to treat the poison of another chemical substance called Mercury. (Now, you know why the Thoughtworks guys named it Selenium) Btw, ThoughtWorks is one of the best firm. If you are working there, time to pat your back and shout with all your lung power “I am with the best”.

Selenium is free (I still wonder how this folks make money). Selenium is a free addon in firefox. Coding is done in Java language (Trust me Java is a damn powerful language). Gets integrated with other tools like FitNesse.Most developers nowadays use Java as their preferred programming language. Selenium has an edge here.

Having said that UFT 11.5 Rocks !!! I was fortunate to have attended a meeting on UFT 11.5 by HP QTP Development Lead. I was blown away by UFT. A totally revamped product.

Only time will tell, if Selenium can stand up to its name and treat the poison of Mercury.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user69069
QA Expert at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Consultant
Is it sane to compare Selenium with QTP?
I have seen many articles which compare Selenium (1 or 2) with QTP (or other commercial tools). But these articles miss very basic point that Selenium is a library available in variety of language while QTP has entire gamut of tools with it. So if you were to really compare QTP with Selenium then comparison should be based on the library of languages which is offered either of these tools, which in my opinion Selenium wins outright over QTP. My only intention of writing this post is not claim Selenium victory of QTP but to demonstrate how badly Selenium is compared with QTP at times. There might be things QTP would be good at doing (I left QTP long ago hence can not name any) but to disregard Selenium on the factors I listed herein is highly biased. Object spying…

I have seen many articles which compare Selenium (1 or 2) with QTP (or other commercial tools). But these articles miss very basic point that Selenium is a library available in variety of language while QTP has entire gamut of tools with it. So if you were to really compare QTP with Selenium then comparison should be based on the library of languages which is offered either of these tools, which in my opinion Selenium wins outright over QTP.
My only intention of writing this post is not claim Selenium victory of QTP but to demonstrate how badly Selenium is compared with QTP at times. There might be things QTP would be good at doing (I left QTP long ago hence can not name any) but to disregard Selenium on the factors I listed herein is highly biased.

  • Object spying - Sure, you have QTP recorder which does it for you but don't forget that you can test object locator using Selenium IDE and it is not limited to using only Selenium IDE. Firebug with Firefox can be used for same while Chrome has built in development tool bar to test element locator. In case you don't know you can use $$("cssLocator") to test css locator and $x("xpathLocator") to test xPath in both FF and chrome to test application objects. Can you use QTP to test object locators in FF and Chrome?
  • Debugging code - So QTP comes in with built-in editor and Selenium is defeated in this aspect. Is it? Given the variety of languages Selenium can be used with, you have far greater language editor options with Selenium than with QTP. You have umpteen options with editors like Intellij, Eclipse, Visual Studio than the one available with QTP. When I was working with QTP I could not even conveniently rename test methods spanning across multiple files. Such re factoring is child's play with professional editors you use with Selenium
  • Recovery Scenarios - This is one of the biggest cheat point of QTP. Add recovery scenarios and tool takes care of working around the update windows. First of all if you add recovery scenario then it slows down the speed of test execution as there would be one listener always looking for such events, which means more recovery scenario and be ready for more slower test execution. Why should you bother about those automatic update windows in your test environment? Should not you proof your test environment against such update windows? If it is windows or FF then disable automatic updates. And best if you can not manage your test environment then out source it to some else like - Sauce Labs or Testing Bot
  • Testing non browser applications - Well, when did Selenium claim that it can tests window based applications. Selenium is browser automation framework. Comparing Selenium and QTP on this front is like comparing apples with oranges.
  • Great object Repository of QTP - So QTP can store objects in an external location, all you need to do is to update object repo when your object location changes. And then you find that the easiest way to port QTP scripts from one machine to another is to use Descriptive Programming which indeed means that you should do away with your beloved object repository of QTP. Now coming to absence of object repository mechanism in Selenium. Have you heard of properties files or Page Factory and guess what, you you don't have to do away with any thing to be able to port your Selenium tests from one machine to another.
  • No built-in Report with Selenium - QTP generates nice test reports and with Selenium - none. Really? When you pick up a language for Selenium you would be using a framework in that language and most probably the framework will provide you the reporting capabilities. For example there is ant task to generate test report in JUnit while TestNG has buit-in reporting mechanism. Google it and you would find similar options in language of your choice.
  • QTP and QC integration- You bought QTP for test automation now buy QC for test management. What with Selenium Test Management tools. None. There are indeed options - xStudio is one good option for small Selenium teams looking for test management with out spending any extra money. And their commercial options are cheaper than QC. If you are looking to port your test results to Test Management tool then TestLink might be worth a try. In this case you don't have to pay at all.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
it_user68493
QA Expert at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees
Vendor
QTP Sucks Selenium Rules
I decided to use Selenium because I like the freedom that you get with all the programming languages it supports and because development is usually quicker than any other testing tools I ever used! I chose Selenium IDE as my first open source automated tool. And then I worked with Selenium RC. And now Selenium Webdriver. It's the best testing tool ever!! I think QTP is sucks. Of course, QTP fanboys will immediately jump up & down stating that I don't know how to use QTP. On the contrary, I know exactly what I am talking about. Because I've been a QTP Engineer for last 6 years. As of this writing, QTP still does not support Mac OS X, and Linux, heck it still doesn't support Firefox 3.6! Are you kidding me? Well, apart from HP's snail pace development process, I have…

I decided to use Selenium because I like the freedom that you get with all the programming languages it supports and because development is usually quicker than any other testing tools I ever used!

I chose Selenium IDE as my first open source automated tool. And then I worked with Selenium RC. And now Selenium Webdriver. It's the best testing tool ever!!

I think QTP is sucks. Of course, QTP fanboys will immediately jump up & down stating that I don't know how to use QTP. On the contrary, I know exactly what I am talking about. Because I've been a QTP Engineer for last 6 years. As of this writing, QTP still does not support Mac OS X, and Linux, heck it still doesn't support Firefox 3.6! Are you kidding me? Well, apart from HP's snail pace development process, I have other problems with the tool itself. Like its really retarded scripting engine (which uses vbscript), which does not provide you any real mechanism to maintain frameworks. Another example - CreateObject("WScript.Shell") - what do you think will happen if you used that in QTP? Any programmer who knows vbscript, will say that it creates a wscript object but she'd be so wrong. It rather creates a native windows shell automation object. WScript CreateObject() is simply not supported in QTP as QTP scripting engine overrides WScript.

Let us get one thing straight - Automation is programming, now let that sink in for a second...again - automation is programming. If your automation tool does not provide a real good programming interface, it is not fit for automation. Obviously in my books, QTP falls way short of that goal. One of the statements I consistenly hear is - "oh we don't have programmers in our automation team". If you cannot see the fallacy in that statement, no one can help your team - not even QTP. And of course, support from HP is bad too. Case in point - few month ago our team encountered a bug in QTP 10 where it had memory allocation issues & the workaround offered to us - "restart QTP after every 4 test case runs". I am not joking.

QTP does few things really good vis-a-vis record & playback (and they make it real simple for non technical users). And that also includes support for various enterprise applications both web based & win32. That means, they have to cover a lot of territory before they can release something and that explains why Windows 7 support is still lacking. But in your case, do you need Sharepoint support on Windows 7? If all you're testing is your own web app, why do you have to wait for HP to finish support for say Oracle enterprise apps? At this juncture, the only reason your team is still sticking to QTP is either because you have no real developers in your QA team and/or you have a lot of test cases automated in QTP. The later is a pain initially to convert to something else, but if you plan it out correctly you will save tons of headache in future.

I could go on & on about all that is wrong with QTP, but this article is not about that. This article is about getting rid of QTP & using alternatives in place of it to achieve a truly cross platform solution. After joining my current company, one of my first goal was to do exactly that. And this article describes what we did & how we did it.

To see a list of hotfixes that I know of see:

http://www.sayem.org/2012/02/qtp-sucks-selenium-rules.html

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Micro Focus UFT One Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.