OpenText UFT One Reviews

I have been running UFT scripts also, apart from the laptops and PC's. We primarily use the solution for end-to-end and functional testing and also for web applications and tunnel-based applications in the testing chain. It's one of the positive points of UFT that UFT can handle both.

I'm just managing the team, so I can only explain my experience via the experiences that I've heard from our team members. One of the aspects that the team really liked was the fact that you can also use the business process testing. 

If you take a look at BPT, the Business Process Testing part of UFT, it's also a step forward for making components. You can combine the components without diving into the code. That's a good thing.

The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high.

The problem with the solution is that you need to have highly specialized skills in order to make the scripts. Also, the scripts that you're developing for less scripted scenarios should be more productive.

The product needs to be simplified overall. They should look to competitors for ways to make things easier and less complex. It would give them a better market position. For example, they need to make it easier to compose a guest case and combine their modules and then create a test case from combining the modules together rather than scripting. 

If they simplify the product and work with building blocks, users won't need to do all the scripts.

The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients.

I'm an independent contractor and I have used the UFT for about two years.

The stability has been good. It's quite reliable. We haven't seen bugs or glitches. It hasn't crashed in any way.

I'm not very involved in the technical part of setting up the solution. There's a specialized team that does the setup. There's another team using the setup and monitoring everything. Whenever there are some problems within the setup, I can refer to another team that can deal with issues.

My understanding is the setup requires some technical work, so those setting it up should be a bit knowledgeable.

Our team has also handled automation.

Due to the fact that the solution was in the organization before I began working with the company, I'm not sure how long deployment took.

The licensing costs are quite high. 

The more you do automation, the more you spend on the license cost. Due to that, sometimes when there is a boom in spending, you will need to justify the extra cost.

We're curious to learn more about Tosca. I've heard also from others that Eggplant is quite good. I've wanted to know more about them for my own research and have been looking at them.

I just use the product as an independent contractor and customer. I don't have a professional relationship with OpenText.

I can recommend the product. If you're a company that is working with any legacy systems, and you need automation with both web-based applications and terminal-based applications. the solution would be a good thing to use.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall. I would rate it higher, however, there is a steep learning curve. You also need to be skilled in using the solution. Why learn such a specific program when there are other products, available as well? When there's such a steep learning curve, it might not make sense for every company. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

There were no issues with the stability.

There were no issues with the scalability.

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.

This is my first involvement with automated testing software.

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.

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

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

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.

UFT provides us with solid automation for our test cases.

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.

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.

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

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

It's been able to scale to our needs.

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

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

It's straightforward.

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.

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

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

It works with both desktop and web-based applications.

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

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

I've used it for six years.

I had no issues with deployment.

I've had no stability issues.

We've scaled without issue.

Customer service is excellent.

Technical support is excellent.

We didn't use a previous solution.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

Stability is good.

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

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.