OpenText UFT One Reviews

We use UFT One for functional testing of business process automation. It includes all the modules, and there are different kinds of modules.  

The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent. 

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

We have been using UFT One for six years.

UFT One is good performance-wise. It's stable and reliable.

UFT One is easy to scale, and there's no problem. Right now, we have fewer projects, so we're using it less. 

The deployment is simple overall, takes less than 30 minutes, and I can handle it on my own. However, there's one thing. We have a UFT developer add-in built into UFT One. It takes more time to install if you aren't an expert. I think that needs to be communicated. This add-in isn't required, and it can slow down your system. That needs to be communicated, so only the useful add-ins need to be covered. Sometimes if there is an issue, and we need a deeper dive with the logs, we might need to contact support.

UFT One has some competition from open-source solutions, so the license cost needs to be reasonable, and the demo periods need to be longer. Earlier, the demo period was 90 days, but it has been reduced to 60. 

If we want to cover the market, we need to consider free users, and the demo should be extended for some customers, so they can try the solution and get used to it. Then we can ask them to purchase a license for use.

I rate Micro Focus UFT One nine out of 10. I stop short of a perfect 10 because it has room for improvement with the installation and some add-ins. UFT One has good coverage of different environments and any Windows application or web application. It's like a record-and-play kind of thing. It has many features for that. 

I am a consultant in my organization and one of the tasks that I perform is to assist other users with technical issues. Specifically, with UFT One, I am currently evaluating the AI features. I want to experiment with them and find out how it all works so that we can take that information to our customers.

The fact that UFT One covers multiple technologies helps in terms of end-to-end scenarios. When we have process flows, workflows, or scenarios that span multiple technologies, we don't have to branch out and use multiple tools. This is very helpful.

The platform supports both API and GUI usage, although we have only used it for GUI.

The continuous testing across the software lifecycle is good. When we have done continuous testing, we connect to remote machines and execute the tool. The only problem that we encountered was that when the system is not visible, or not logged in, then there were some issues. However, it has been several months since we tried this.

We have not really put the AI capabilities into practice yet because it is currently only applicable for web-based applications. Our customers have pre-existing tools that already perform this work.

In general, UFT has helped to reduce our test execution time. In particular, with our non-web ecosystem, the execution time has been reduced considerably.

At this point, UFT has not helped us to decrease defects because we are not creating new test cases. Rather, we are automating test cases with it. It might be the case for regression testing, as regression defects are much higher. 

We also use UFT One for SAP test scenarios.

I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications. For browser applications, we have a good number of non-commercial alternatives. However, for thick clients, whether they are Java, Mainframe, SAP, or .NET, this solution works pretty well.

The introduction of artificial intelligence in UFT is a step in the right direction.

The UFT automated manual process has helped to increase our test coverage. Not every one of the tools is applicable but there are some provisions in the latest version that can increase the testing coverage.

We perform some of our tests in virtual machines and UFT gives us control over the machine configuration, such as allocating specific resources. That said, we have our virtual machines configured by another team before they are provided to us, so we don't have UFT control them.

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

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

I have been using Micro Focus UFT One for between six months and one year. More generally, I have used UFT for approximately 12 years.

The stability is pretty good with respect to the traditional functionality, which has been existing for years. Some of the new features might not be as stable. In particular, there is a little bit of instability with the AI features that I have observed. I think that this is acceptable given that it is new.

This product is scalable in some regards and not others. 

As for extending the execution of tests to other machines, you have to install UFT on every machine and get it started, which may not be very scalable. However, it is scalable in terms of generally extending coverage to other applications. Essentially, once you start automating an application, you can continue to build on that as new requirements or scenarios come in.

I have not personally dealt with customer support, although when I was helping one of our customer teams, there was a problem that I could not resolve and I asked them to raise a ticket. Unfortunately, the issue was not resolved. I was told that the answer from the Micro Focus support team was not helpful.

Five or six years ago, I did deal with UFT support, but it was not for the UFT One product.

I have interacted with the Micro Focus design team, giving my input as to how AI is important. I was told that it's going to be available in upcoming releases.

I have used other tools including Tricentis Tosca, and I find that one, in particular, to be better for testing web-based applications. There are other tools including TestComplete, but I would recommend UFT One for non-web applications.

Tricentis Tosca is nice because it is a scriptless tool, you don't need to know scripting in order to get it to work. It is more UI-based and a new person can usually do well with it, and there is not much of a learning curve. This is in contrast to UFT One, where you need to know the scripting language in order to automate tests.

I assist our clients in setting up their operations, such as helping to identify objects or setting up the scripting. However, I do not help with the actual deployment.

In the past, UFT One did not support integration with third-party applications such as Jenkins and Bamboo. However, there are now some plugins that are available.

My advice for others who are considering this product is that they are looking to automate non-web applications, then it is a good choice. For web-based applications, I would recommend another tool, such as Tricentis Tosca.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

OpenText UFT is a very good tool for testing purposes. We use it primarily for API testing.

This tool integrates well into our environment.

We have the ability to develop automatically for different countries when using continuous deployment. We can use the same scripts, which is a nice feature.

One of the most valuable features is the analysis using artificial intelligence.

This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain.

We can develop negative test cases for API calls, which is helpful.

One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement.

I have had problems with the parameterization chaining.

Given that there is a lot of competition in the market from similar tools, the price should be reduced.

There should be line numbers in the code.

I have been using UFT One for eight years in different organizations.

This is a stable solution that is made up of several different applications.

The scalability is good.

I have also used Selenium and I find that OpenText is better. It is easier, for example, to develop automation. Also, OpenText is easier to maintain than Selenium.

It is a straightforward product to implement.

This solution is quite costly and there is no free trial available. We purchased it from SAP because we got a cheaper price.

The subscription fees are paid annually.

My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it integrates well into your environment, is easy to use, easy to maintain, and makes your development efforts more efficient. The entire development chain, including smoke tests, will be improved.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this product for our functional and automatic testing. I'm a senior test manager and we are customers of Micro Focus.

It's a fine solution with good out-of-the-box protocols. Right now we're moving to a new way of working so we're going to need to move away from this product. 

Improvement could be made in the cost of the solution and the support time involved in solving issues. This is something that is quite tricky. I try to get the support on a ticket, but it takes time for it to be managed. This part is always quite tedious and that's in addition to the renewal process for licensing. It's not managed very well by Micro Focus. We're looking into more open source products. 

I'd like to see a change in the programming language so that the product would support modern programming languages. It would improve agility which I believe the product needs. 

I've been using the solution for four years. 

Technical support could be improved. 

The implementation was carried out by the vendor but the rest was done either in-house or using third party providers. We carry out the maintenance using our admins. We're using the product intensively right now and we have around 80 or 90 users using it every day. 

The license model is quite complex. We have the normal basic license plus some support costs and other things so it depends on a lot of factors.

I'm not sure this solution is the future with many companies now moving to agility-focused solutions. I have used these products for the past 20 years and they were good and fast but now there are other competitors who are coming out with better solutions. 

I would rate this solution a six out of 10. 

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.

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.

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.

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

Once installed, it deploys without any issue.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We use this product for end-to-end testing, from order to cash.

The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement.

It works well for testing multiple end-to-end scenarios.

We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes.

In the next release, I would like to be able to see multiple scripts at the same time.

We have been using Micro Focus UFT One for several years, since before it was purchase and renamed from QTP.

We have had some issues with stability so I would rate it a solid five out of ten in that regard. Middle of the road.

The scalability is okay.

We have not yet contacted technical support, although there are areas where we need to. Our contract is set up such that we would not be contacting Micro Focus directly.

The initial setup was straightforward. It did not take long to deploy because there are only two departments using it right now. It is not company-wide.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to be aware that it lends itself to having coding knowledge. I would say that you have to be comfortable with coding to use it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.

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.

It's stable

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.

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.

It's very straightforward.

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.