OpenText UFT One Reviews

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.

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.

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

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

There were no issues with the deployment.

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.

The customer service is prompt.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I have been using it for a year

Deployment was simple.

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

It's scalability was very flexible.

Customer service was helpful and knowledgeable

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

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.

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.

We use this solution for database and desktop application testing. We are customers of Micro Focus and I'm a senior software engineer. 

The stop automation is a great feature that is not generally supported by other solutions. 

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

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is 70-80%  stable. Stability really depends on the servers or the license which we have installed. If the license doesn't reach the server, there's less stability.

The solution is scalable. 

The setup process was somewhere in between straightforward and complex. The vendor carried out the implementation for us; it would have been helpful to have better documentation. The solution doesn't require maintenance but when the version changes and you have to reinstall there might be some work involved. We're not using the solution on a daily basis, just when we need it.

This is a great solution and I rate it eight out of 10. 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

We are responsible for automation of the regression test cases. We have a standard set of regression test cases, which are comprised of SAP solutions, web-based applications, as well as some Windows-based applications. We have test cases which cater to each of these solutions individually.

In addition, we have test cases to test things from end-to-end. That means the data has to flow from one application to another and it has to be validated. We write reusable pieces of code, which are stitched together to create the end-to-ends.

In SAP, transaction codes are available and they are automated. They are stitched together to form a test case. For example, if a customer places an order on the website, we will get an order number in SAP. We will process that order in SAP to create the delivery with a particular T-code. Once we process that delivery, we will mark it as "good session," which means the order itself will flow out of our warehouse via the transportation. Once the customer receives it, we have the invoicing process. We automate these individual T-codes, and then stitch them together.

In our organization, a developer will develop a piece of code and give it to us. We will test it and tell them about any issues or defects. The way we do that is we automate some piece of their code, whatever the core functionality is, and get ready for the next iteration. That means that when the sprint goes from Sprint 1 to Sprint 2, we make sure that Sprint 1 is not impacted because of new code deployment. The way we have benefited from UFT is that we are not using manual regression testing. Whatever code we have developed will be enhanced in Sprint 2 , and we keep that piece ready for Sprint 3 regression. Therefore, over a period of time, we will have the flow ready, and we don't have to do manual testing from scratch for every release.

Previously, we were doing manual testing for each sprint, and when we got to an advanced sprint, like Sprint 4 or 5, we would have to stop and test that entire functionality again. UFT has helped us a lot in reducing the manual effort and in passing the savings along to our client. Regression efforts have been reduced by at least 20 percent, if not more.

Initially, we were using UFT 12 or 12.53 and then we started slowly increasing by installing the patches and moving to the next versions. When compared with UFT and manual execution, we have definitely saved a lot of effort, somewhere in the range of 60 to 70 percent when compared with our efforts to manually test. A script which takes around half an hour to execute in automation takes around 3.5 hours for manual execution, along with documentation because we execute things in a way that it creates the documentation as well.

It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting. There are many people on my team who have started learning automation.

I have been using UFT for a couple of years, but I have only been using UFT One for the past two to three months. I am still learning many things about UFT One.

We haven't faced many issues with UFT One in terms of stability. If your system meets the requirements they indicate, you should not face problems. In a machine where we had less memory, we did have some trouble. Since we upgraded the memory for that machine, we have not faced any memory issues or stability issues with UFT One.

Scalability, for our needs, has worked spectacularly well. There were some issues that we were facing with some of the patches. They were taken under consideration by OpenText and we got proper updates from the team.

When we want to increase the number of people in a team, because our licenses are limited, we sometimes face an issue, but that is not their problem because we have chosen limited licenses. We sometimes find it difficult to get people onboarded when we have a lot of work and that sometimes hinders the work. With an open source tool, you don't have any such problem. If you have a lot of work and you want to onboard more people you get it done.

Because our project was already in UFT, we are trying to utilize UFT One to have proper capabilities in AI and for automation from screenshots. But it is good to see a lot of changes and we are trying to utilize them in our upcoming releases and projects.

Support is okay. We have not faced many problems. But if we do face some issue, we can definitely raise a ticket and the ticket is looked into. I don't have any complaints about customer support. I would rate it about an eight out of 10.

It's not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution.

I have certification in Tosca and UiPath.

Tosca is basically scriptless automation which is also good. UiPath is not technically for regression testing, it's an RPA tool. You don't have validations, per se; you have to create them. Because I have a longer period of association with UFT, and some of the other tools did not help me in some situations, I go with UFT.

From my experience, UFT One is good in terms of automation of multiple applications. For example, if you have five applications and any one of them is not suitable for automation by UFT One, you may have to re-think using it. But if all the applications are compatible with UFT One and you are able to automate, it's better to go with UFT One. 

We don't have much continuous testing in our process because we don't do Agile testing, but we do have some amount of testing for what we call "rapids," for defects or announcements. It is useful when it comes to the second or third sprints where there are use cases in which we can leverage speeding up the testing. But we haven't used UFT One for a continuous delivery, as in from build to deployment.

There are several new features which we can explore and use for continuous testing, but our project, not being Agile right now, has limitations in that regard. Management is looking to convert it into an Agile project soon and I expect we will start using UFT One full-fledged, with all its features.

I'm very comfortable with the UFT One for our project needs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

We've had no issues with deployment.

It's been stable for us.

No issues with scalability.

8/10

8/10

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

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

Our in-house admin team implemented it.

It's an expensive solution.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.