OpenText UFT One Reviews

UFT One is great for recording and automating test cases.

The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner.

One area for improvement is its occasional slowness.

I have been working with OpenText UFT One for a long time.

UFT One was generally stable and didn't have significant downtime or performance issues. The only notable drawback was its slower performance during certain tasks.

UFT One itself appeared to be fairly scalable, as it generally runs one test at a time. However, it can be integrated into LoadRunner for combined testing, although I haven't delved deeply into that aspect.

The installation and setup of UFT One were relatively easy. I had to install it on my computer, and the only requirement was access to a license server. Overall, it wasn't a complex installation process. The deployment took about an hour.

I would recommend UFT One to those considering its use. It is straightforward to set up, especially with the AI capabilities, although it can be slow at times. Despite the occasional slowness, it is much easier to use now compared to earlier versions and can save a significant amount of time compared to manual functional testing. Overall, I would rate the solution as a nine out of ten.

We use this solution to develop the framework for test automation. 

The solution is deployed on-premise.

There are about one hundred people using this solution in my organization. My company is offering services for automation. I have a team of 17 people who are constantly using the solution, and we're delivering the solution to my customers. We are a reseller and partner.

It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people.

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

I have been using this solution since 2003.

It's stable.

It's scalable on the enterprise level. I have already scaled a project with UFT One at enterprise level. I'm using it because it is very scalable compared to open-source tools and many other tools on the market.

I have worked with the tool for a long time, so I haven't needed technical support often. But they were very helpful when I needed them.

It's extremely easy to set up.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10. 

The most important recommendation is to get trained before using this product. There isn't a lot of advanced information on the internet for free, so get trained first and then use the product at maximum capacity.

Micro Focus UFT One is an automation tool, that is primarily used to automate web and desktop applications.

It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier.

Object Identification is very easy. 

The integration with other test management tools is good, which is very good.

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

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

They are still improvising the UI. 

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

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

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

We are working with the latest version.

It's very nice. The stability is good.

Micro Focus UFT One is a scalable product.

We have approximately 100 end users in our company who use this solution.

I am reducing my usage slowly. I am reducing 30 to 40% of the licenses.

We have contacted technical support. They're fine. I don't see the benefit in the chats I had with them about the issues we were having. They are, nonetheless, fine. Our requirement was a far more serious issue. As a result, they were unable to assist us. They're fine, though. They are quite knowledgeable.

Previously, we did not use another solution.

The initial setup was very straightforward.

We did not need any assistance. We are good with the knowledge that we have internally.

We have to pay for licenses. The licensing fee is paid on a yearly basis.

The price is one aspect that could be improved.

I would not recommend this solution to others who are considering it.

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

I recently took became a QA for our company and was trained on various tools including the solution as part of job orientation. 

We have 100 engineers in our company who use the solution for automation testing. 

It is very easy to create shared repositories that can be used throughout all testing. This feature makes our jobs easier. 

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

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

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

There was one issue so support was emailed for assistance. I am not sure of support's response because it was handled by our unit manager.

The setup process could be improved because reinstallation is required if you miss an add-in during initial setup. It would be beneficial to have an installation outline or information about selecting add-ins. 

Deployment is quick and takes only a couple of minutes. 

Technical support from Edgewood guided us through the initial setup and installation. 

One in-house engineer can handle ongoing maintenance. 

Our engineers were also were trained on and use TestComplete. 

I like the direction the solution is heading and am really happy with how they keep adding new features. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The licensing and pricing model is confusing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

UFT (erstwhile QTP) is a widely popular test automation tool. During my initial days, I used UFT extensively to automate test cases. Now, with the latest version of OpenText UFT One, there are added features that address the new-age testing requirements. In my current position as Practice Head of Test Automation competency at a Tier 1 company, we propose various befitting tools to our existing or new customers. Whenever we work on a particular solution or requirement, we propose automation tools to support the entire environment to support end-to-end automation. If my customer is looking for an automation solution, they will typically ask, "Can you provide a solution to automate my end-to-end scenario?" Every proposal or potential requirement is a new business case for us.

In some of our recent customer requirements, we have proposed the OpenText UFT One tool. The primary reason behind this is that a customer may have different systems, for e.g., a mainframe system, which is a legacy technology, their current web applications, like AngularJS or ReactJS, could include SAP ERP. In such an ecosystem, UFT One is the right fit to automate end-to-end systems.

Scripting is a basic feature of UFT One. Some tools may use programming languages like Java, Python, or Ruby; but UFT One uses a very basic, simple programming language called VBScript. The advantage of VBScript for a manual tester is if he/she has a basic knowledge of automation, and loops/conditions, then he can easily understand whatever script is created in UFT One, using VBScript. The point is that VBScript is very easy to understand with minimal knowledge. It can easily be modified as per requirement. UFT One all the technologies including a legacy to modern technologies.

For one of our customers, we proposed integration between UFT One and Azure DevOps (ADO). We were able to easily establish that integration, which means the solution's integration capability with third-party tools is s. With some tools, you may need additional effort to communicate with source code management (SCM) tools, whereas UFT One connects easily. There is a keyword view available in UFT One. Using that keyword view, you can see all the statements in proper order.

UFT One has its own feature called Test Combinations Generator to prepare test data. If I have data in an Excel file, then it is very easy to create an object in either Notepad, file system object, or database object. We can easily retrace the data.

Particularly, I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed.

UFT One supports AI features to automate web and mobile applications. For example, suppose, if earlier there was a button in the left corner, which now has moved to the right corner. In such a situation, we would need to update the script. However, with AI, there is no need to update the script. Within the screen, if that particular button is placed anywhere on the screen, then we can easily handle it and the script will not fail. The integration part is very easy for mobile automation, as well.

We can also automate PDF and forms, using UFT One. For example, one of our customers prepared a lot of macros in an Excel file and created their own custom options in the toolbar. Their requirement was to automate the Excel file, but not read the data, so we had to handle the different icons in the Excel file. Therefore, it generated the pivot table, selecting different options in the pivot table and validating some third-party applications.

UFT One can automate different technologies like SAP, Oracle, SFDC, Microsoft products, Mobile applications, and many more technologies.

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

UFT also has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts.

We have been using the solution for 13 to 14 years. I started by using an older version of UFT One, Quick Test Professional (QTP) 6.5.

UFT One is 100 percent stable. There have been no crashes of any kind.

It is easily scalable. It supports increases in automation as well as integrates with third-party tools, like ALM Octane and Jenkins.

OpenText technical support is prompt. They will try to get you a proper solution to your inquiry.

It is very easy to install and configuration is not required.

Deployment time takes three to four minutes, though it depends on the RAM and performance of the processor. However, if you install MS Office, that will definitely take some time.

Our customers are always looking to reduce their efforts. This solution will give you such an advantage.

Depending on the landscape and stability of the customer application, they should see ROI (or the breakeven point) within six to nine iterations.

The license is important. If the license is up and running when you open it, there won't be any issues.

Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very cheap. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so OpenText offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive.

There are a lot of tools available in the market, however, the primary advantageous feature identified in UFT One is simple: It supports legacy to modern technologies. This is why I propose UFT One.

Everybody is aware of mainframe systems because of Y2K. This solution supports a lot of terminal emulators that communicate and connect to mainframe systems. That is one of its key advantages. Some automation tools provide only a fewer number of terminal emulators, but UFT One supports a lot of terminal emulators to communicate with mainframes.

If someone is new to test automation, we will typically propose UFT One.

OpenText recently started offering UFT One as a PaaS, which has been helpful for our customers.

I would rate this solution as a nine (out of 10).