OpenText UFT One Reviews

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.

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

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

It's 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 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

We've had no issues with deployment.

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.

We've had no issues with scalability.

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

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.

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.

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

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

UFT is stable. Not a problem.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

I have used it for eight years.

I did not encounter any deployment issues.

I did not encounter any stability issues.

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

I rate customer service 9/10.

I rate technical support 9/10.

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

Setup was easy and straightforward.

An in-house team implemented it.

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

We also evaluated Smart Bear’s TestComplete.

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.

• Object repository
• Supported keywords
• API testing

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.

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

I've been using it for two years.

It often crashes.

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.

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

Everything is readable and easy to understand.

We did it in-house.

Open-source automated testing engines are also good.

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)

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

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.

I've used it for six years.

I did not encounter any issues with deployment.

Yes, there were stability issues sometimes.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

Customer service is excellent.

Technical support is good.

We didn't use any previous solutions.

Initial setup was straightforward.

We used an in-house team for implementation.

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

We didn't evaluate any other options.

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.

The IDE is very user friendly.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.