We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Tricentis Tosca Competitors and Alternatives

Get our free report covering Micro Focus, Worksoft, SeleniumHQ, and other competitors of Tricentis Tosca. Updated: September 2021.
542,823 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Tricentis Tosca competitors and alternatives

Jens Neuhaus
Enterprise Architect SAP Solutions at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Saves time by decoupling test scripts from the data and the application, and allows us to implement logic into the scripts without coding

Pros and Cons

  • "The decoupling of the test scripts from the data and the application is a nice feature. When you are creating test scripts, for example, for a web application, you have to learn about Worksoft and how the controls of a screen can be interpreted by Worksoft. For that purpose, you create so-called maps. These maps are loosely coupled to your scripts, which means if the application is changed, the control will be changed from an identifier. You don't need to rework the entire script. You only need to do these adjustments in the map, and then you can automatically reuse the scripts. So, it is really a smart move to have the decoupling of scripts, maps, and data."
  • "Certify is integrated with Solution Manager, but this integration could be easier."

What is our primary use case?

We have an SAP environment, so we use Worksoft for SAP and the ecosystem around SAP. Most of the use cases are related to SAP products or interfaces and the applications that are interacting with SAP.

We use it for test automation. We are basically using it for regression testing, especially for our releases. For example, in the big SAP systems, when we have support package upgrades or bigger function releases, we use end-to-end test automation to ensure that the changes are not impacting the processes in the system. With this test effort, we can make sure that the releases are running without any issues in the production systems.

We started using it around six years ago with an on-prem installation, and we had a pretty good experience with that. The way we are using the software is that we have installed it on our terminal server so that not every tester has to install it on his own machine. Having this terminal server environment is allowing us to really stick to specific standards in terms of how the software will be used and in which sequence updates will be distributed on the server. It also helps in terms of the connectivity to the systems that we require for test automation. It makes it quite easy for people to concentrate on developing tests and not on the environment. 

We are running version 12.0, and 2006.77 is the patch level. 

How has it helped my organization?

In terms of its web UI testing abilities for testing modern applications, such as SAP Fiori, we started implementing a project two years ago where we developed a logistic layer and a finance layer, which all the future SAP systems of the headquarter divisions will be using. For that project, we had introduced Worksoft for automated testing. We are quite heavily using Worksoft in that area. We have all of our core functionality in that area automated, and we had a really good experience with Fiori. 

Worksoft has these so-called configuration files that you can get for different applications to define the maps. We are also using ServiceNow or Pega for Workforce management. For both applications, you can get so-called configuration files from Worksoft, and with these configuration files, Worksoft can very easily identify the objects. So, you don't need to learn Worksoft from scratch, but you can really build on the foundation of already-existing definitions coming from Worksoft. 

It provides codeless end-to-end process automation across packaged applications. It does not have the approach of writing scripts or having a scripting language for the logic. It is pretty easy to adopt. It is helping us in general because you don't need a developer or a technical guy for building these scripts. People in the business organization can really design their own scripts without heavy IT support. Normally, we just teach testers how to work with Certify in general for a couple of hours. If they have understood the basic patterns in terms of how to find specific commands, how to really work with these conditions, and how to work with varietals, after a day or two, they are able to work with this solution. They might sometimes ask where to find specific things, but because Worksoft also provides master content with a lot of examples, they can deal with it from there. In our company, we have an approach that all people work on the same project. This means that they are also sharing their scripts internally so they can read and steal from others. We also have a concept that for every SAP system, there should be one test architect who is knowledgeable. He is a key user, and he drives the effort to bring knowledge to people. 

It definitely reduces the time you spend on test maintenance. The debug feature, the recognition feature, and the decoupling of scripts and maps are really saving time. Imagine having an error at step 850 in a test script that has 1,000 test steps, and these 850 steps have taken you an hour for execution. In such a case, you have to repeat the entire test because you don't have the possibility to go back to certain steps. Every time, you will lose an hour or two in maintenance. Having these features makes it pretty effective and efficient, but it is hard to say the exact time because you don't know how often your scripts are breaking because of updates. It also depends on the number of scripts. We also have to see the number of saved hours in relation to other tools. So, if you're comparing it with an open-source test automation tool like Selenium, it might be saving you more time, but that might not be the case if you're comparing it with Micro Focus or Tosca. 

It has definitely enabled us to scale up our testing. When you use automated test scripts for test cases, your testers are released from that testing time, and they can concentrate on further testing. The way we are introducing test automation in our organization is that we say, "Okay. This dummy type of testing can be done by a robot such as Certify," and then our testers, who are hopefully more intelligent than the machine, can concentrate more on the individual tests. You cannot really automate all the test cases, and it allows our testers to concentrate on the individual test cases.

What is most valuable?

Worksoft Certify works well for creating test scripts. As compared to other tools for test automation, what is very good in this tool is the ability to implement logic into the scripts without coding and learning a complex script language. It is comparable to defining formulas in Excel. It is pretty easy to learn how to make your scripts more intelligent and more flexible as per the situation.

The decoupling of the test scripts from the data and the application is also a nice feature. When you are creating test scripts, for example, for a web application, you have to learn about Worksoft and how the controls of a screen can be interpreted by Worksoft. For that purpose, you create so-called maps. These maps are loosely coupled to your scripts, which means if the application is changed, the control will be changed from an identifier. You don't need to rework the entire script. You only need to do these adjustments in the map, and then you can automatically reuse the scripts. So, it is really a smart move to have the decoupling of scripts, maps, and data. 

Its debugging functionality is pretty powerful as compared to other tools. Recognizing the errors sometimes could be challenging. When the debug function, for debugging your scripts, runs on an error, it can stop at that error and identify the elements that may have not been recognized. It can then update the definition to recognize the object. It then repeats the step again so that you have a so-called execution pointer, which you can then use for your debugging. 

What needs improvement?

Certify is integrated with Solution Manager, but this integration could be easier. 

Overall, in terms of how it is working, I find it pretty clever in all the areas. There are only tiny things. For example, to log into Certify, you have to put in your username and password. In version 12, they changed it, and the password is no longer stored. So, you have to enter it every time you log in. Similarly, there should be a way to store the layout of tables in Certify. You can adjust your tables, but when you close Certify, if I recall correctly, the layout of the table is not stored automatically. So, you have to adjust it every time. I'm, however, not quite certain about it. 

These are tiny things that they can improve, but compared to the whole feature list of Certify, they are not so important.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for around six years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We regularly update the software when we see that there are new features available or if there are fixes in certain areas. In general, the Certify software is pretty stable. Based on our experience, there is no need to import patches every month or on very short notice. We normally plan for once a year version update.

How are customer service and technical support?

In our S4 project, we had the need to develop automated testing for Excel-based solutions. We needed to test the business planning functionality that was running in Excel from SAP. It is quite challenging to build automated test scripts in desktop applications like Excel, but we got quite good support from the offshore team of Worksoft. We had a talk with an engagement manager from Worksoft, and then someone from India came to Lisbon, Portugal, and they all worked together. Our team quite quickly learned how to handle the challenges in that area. So, it is not only about the tool; it is also about the support you are getting from Worksoft. Their support was quite impressive.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

It is pretty powerful as compared to other tools. We developed our own tool, and we have also compared it with Micro Focus. We have some knowledge of QTP from HP and Tosca Tricentis. From my perspective, especially when it comes to debugging and also object recognition, Worksoft may be one or two years ahead as compared to the other tools.

How was the initial setup?

When we started with this solution, we had an engagement program. We had a consultant from Worksoft for 20 or 30 days on demand. It was an engagement contract that we had signed while acquiring the licenses. We had two or three onsite sessions. This consultant was here in Berlin with me and helped with the installation and documentation. This engagement really should be seen as enablement. It was not that the consultant did everything and then handed over the documentation. These sessions were more like hands-on sessions, which means our administrators understood how to install the software, how to configure the software, and how to make connections between different applications, especially with the database. They also understood how to make sure that our security regulations are met because there were some problems there. After we had documented everything, the consultant did his job with other clients, and we continued to handle the software on our own. We are deploying patches these days without any support from Worksoft because we simply learned how to do it.

Its initial setup is complex. There is the client part and the database part that you have to install. The client installation is pretty easy and straightforward, and you just have to click the Next button. For the database part, there are SQL Server scripts that need to be executed on the database server. It is pretty simple. You have scripts running on the database, and typically, they run without errors. In all these years, we had problems with the upgrade only twice. We have a QA environment where we typically test the upgrades. We had an error because a column was missing in the table. We raised a ticket, and someone from Worksoft helped us. We learned how to handle it and did the same on the production system without any support. 

If you give me a system, a database server, and maybe a terminal server and we have to install both parts, the database part can be done in one or two hours, which includes preparation time, execution time, and post-installation time. Overall, it would take a day because the database also requires some time for installation. If you are simply differentiating between the effort and the duration, in terms of duration, the database would take a day. In terms of effort, it would take one or two hours. The client part also takes one to two hours, depending on the resource you are using. After that, you only need to do the configuration to connect to the license server and the database. If you know what to do, it would be up and running in a maximum of two hours. We are not really talking about a complex SAP system. It is simply a test automation tool.

What was our ROI?

We have seen an ROI. In the end, it is money and time. You save time for the testing, and you also save time in making corrections. If you don't have such high-quality testing, you will end up with errors in the production system. You will also have some interruptions in the daily business in your SAP systems. That's one aspect of the return on investment. The easiest way to calculate the ROI is in terms of the effort that you are reducing for testing.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I can only judge based on the situation that we had around six years ago when we did the tool evaluation. Worksoft was not the cheapest, but it provided the value. For 25 concurrent licenses, we paid more than €400,000, so it was not cheap. In the end, if you see how much time you are saving and compare it with others, its price is okay. We had also compared its cost with the licensing costs for HP and Tricentis, and they were at another level.

Now, as we have already booked the licenses, we only have to pay an annual maintenance fee, which is 70%, and that is okay.

What other advice do I have?

The biggest change was not really the tool. There is the saying, "A fool with a tool is still a fool." That's pretty much true. When you are starting with test automation, you basically have to understand the concepts behind test automation, and you have to learn how the robot does the testing. Normally, your testers are reacting, and they are pretty flexible. For example, if they recognize that something is blocking a storage location, they free up the storage location and continue. If you are doing the same with an automated test script, this needs to be implemented in the test script or logic. This is pretty much the difference. So, you need to be very precise in knowing the circumstances or issues that the tool might come across during a test. You also have to have a big focus on the test data. That's because if someone changes your master data, your test scripts will fail, and you won't be able to differentiate whether the error is on the system side or the data side. 

You also need to think about how you are building your end-to-end tests. In the past, most of our tests were in the area of functional tests, but for the dependencies between the different functions, we really had to concentrate on end-to-end testing. This is pretty much the challenge when people from different organizations have to work together. There must be someone from the purchasing team and the finance team to negotiate on specific test cases and test data, which really takes time. With Certify, you have a tool with which you can concentrate on the content and the logic of your end-to-end scripts, and you don't need to spend so much time handling the tool. A good piece of advice for someone who would like to use Certify is that do not concentrate so much on the tool. You should concentrate more on the concepts and circumstances, such as how to ensure the stability of your systems and data. Are you going to introduce a pre-prod system, an isolated system, or an environment? That is more challenging than the tool.

We are using the Capture feature to capture a sequence of our test. Once this sequence is recorded in Capture, we then transfer it to Certify and continue the development there. The Capture feature is kind of a movie that you create. This movie is transferred to the Certify tool, and you can use a feature called BBP to transfer your test scripts into multiple formats. You can transfer it to PDF or Word format. You can show the process documentation with screenshots in a Word document, but in our company, we are very much standardized and formalized. So, this kind of process documentation is not sufficient. We can use it for simple documentation, for example, for discussing change requests for an SAP system, but for comprehensive detailed documentation, we have tools in place.

We have different tools in our company for RPA. RPA is not really in the area of Worksoft. I know that some of the organizations that are using Worksoft Certify for automation are also using it for RPA, but this is more of an exceptional case.

I would rate Worksoft Certify a nine out of 10. I'm pretty confident of and satisfied with this tool, but there is always room for improvement.

Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
Renee Kuijpers
Advisor Test management and coordination Concern Affairs Province of Noord-Holland at Provincie Noord-Holland
Real User
Top 5
Enables us to test much more frequently and provide functional maintenance feedback quickly

Pros and Cons

  • "What Qualibrate makes very easy to do is to record a process flow. Within five minutes you have a clear document produced by Qualibrate. Instead of using Word, and copying and pasting pictures into it from printscreens, within five minutes what you have was easy to make and it's easy for users to use."
  • "We had an issue with SAP when using PDF forms. That was something that was not supported by Qualibrate, but we solved that issue by choosing another solution. That was the only wish we had with Qualibrate."

What is our primary use case?

With Qualibrate, the accent for us is on SAP, because that's our biggest application and a critical application for our company. Web was also an opportunity.

How has it helped my organization?

If you do a SAP regression test and you have to do it via manual testing, you need to organize a lot of people. The difference with automation testing is I can do it every day. What we have with SAP are the HR Support Packages, the service packages. We do them every half year, but if I want to check it, I can do it every day. That is a great advantage when using Qualibrate for automated testing.

Qualibrate has enabled our business users to create automated test scripts without requiring coding knowledge. That was a main part of the decision for the business, that it is easy to use. You don't have to be educated and have experience in Java or HTML. They have to know what kinds of flows they want. I have explained that they need to make their flows in building blocks. We are now planning to bring the Qualibrate solution to the business users.

Qualibrate enables us to do more frequent testing, without putting too much pressure on timelines and resources. I'm doing it every day and I'm showing management the differences between that and once a month or once every half a year. We now have continuous testing and that's what we also want to do with all the applications in the cloud. We need to be able to test development or when a change is planned for an application. We need automated testing in the continuous delivery pipeline.

The more frequent testing has affected the number of production incidents and software quality a lot. If you do testing every day, after a weekend of development changes in some formulas we use for the desktop application, running the scripts automatically means they see the changes in what they have deployed. That is a big advantage. I can immediately see, in the morning, what they have done over the weekend in deploying applications. I report things to the project leaders and the people responsible for functional maintenance of that application. They are surprised: "How do you know that so fast?" It's because by running Qualibrate we get the answer.

With Qualibrate, when we looked at the time and resources we are saving it was €1.5 million per year, mostly because of the move away from manual testing. Maybe that's a small amount if you compare it with my last employer, when I worked for ING Bank, but we are a small company. We only have 1,800 employees. Using Qualibrate we are saving a lot of time for the regular users because people on the business side are not testers. They have to take care of daily business as a priority. I am able to take work from them and that makes it easier for them to do their regular work.

Also, where it might have taken a day to create a test document, now, if you do work with a flow, it takes you four or five minutes and you have your automated test flow and your documentation for your process. That makes Qualibrate a fine application to work with.

What is most valuable?

What Qualibrate makes very easy to do is to record a process flow. Within five minutes you have a clear document produced by Qualibrate. Instead of using Word, and copying and pasting pictures into it from printscreens, within five minutes what you have was easy to make and it's easy for users to use.

What needs improvement?

We had an issue with SAP when using PDF forms. That was something that was not supported by Qualibrate, but we solved that issue by choosing another solution. That was the only wish we had with Qualibrate. All the other functionality provided is all the functionality we need.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using Qualibrate for three years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's very stable. I'm working in Qualibrate almost every day and sometimes on weekends. I haven't experienced any issues. It's running smoothly.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Our use of the solution is still growing. We started using it on sub-solutions but nowadays we are getting a lot of requests from the business to do dev projects or help them with their applications. Instead of their manual testing they would like automated testing. It's easy for me, as an admin user, to create a new project and guide them with my knowledge in creating flows and scenarios. The number of projects and business partners requesting use of it is growing in our company.

We now have 301 flows using Qualibrate and in a year we did about a half million test steps.

We have five licenses. I use it as a test engineer. On the business side there are functional maintainers, and some of the business users, or the people around them, are guiding the process flow by first creating the test steps we have to record. So we now have 10 people directly involved with Qualibrate.

How are customer service and technical support?

We have weekly contact with Qualibrate. If there are some wishes on our side, we can mention them there and they will be put into review for deployment. Our last request was that when you record a flow, that it would automatically create screenshots. Screenshots are much better than they were before for the documentation and for use as a user manual. That has improved now.

I'm very happy with the service level they give us, especially from Alan, Marina, and Martina. They are always available for me if I'm calling, or by email or by Teams. Their technical support is a nine out of 10. 

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We previously used a manual testing system that I had adopted from ING Bank. Phase one was to collect the information and phase two was to create your manual testing.

We started using Qualibrate in 2017 with a pilot version because our organizations had a big need for automating our process flows. We would usually do it manually and part of it is still manual. But our organizations had a question: "Can we go for automated testing?"

How was the initial setup?

I was the person who introduced Qualibrate as a choice in our company. The parent company is IOVIO, and I worked with IOVIO when I was at ING Bank.

The initial setup was very easy. It is a SaaS application. It was easy to install and easy to use. There was no problem installing it in our environment. Within an hour it was operational.

The only thing we needed to do to use Qualibrate was more due to our technical maintenance requirements. We weren't allowed to have local admin rights but because Qualibrate is using an updater. The updater has to be clear of admin rights because otherwise you can't install new features. That made for a little discussion, but happily that's over now. But there were no problems installing or setting up the whole thing. However, I have to mention that I'm experienced in test engineering, so that also enabled us to do it very quickly and easily.

What about the implementation team?

We deployed it with help from Qualibrate consultants because it was our first time using Qualibrate. They were onsite and helped us to install it on each of the laptops, easily. We had three licenses to start.

The  consultants were great. Qualibrate is a young and dynamic team, and they were willing and able to help us every time I called.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Automated testing is not cheap. But other companies, for example, Panaya, required a minimum of 10 licenses. Qualibrate allowed us to start small, with three licenses, with a price that was competitive within the market.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We invited a lot of companies to do a presentation. In the end, our stakeholders were convinced that Qualibrate was the best solution for us. We looked at Tosca, Solution Manager from SAP, Panaya, and Testbirds. Because we are government organizations, and we need to be very transparent in choosing a company to provide us with automated testing, we had to invite several companies.

In the past I was a test engineer with Micro Focus LoadRunner and Solution Manager. Qualibrate is a very simple solution. You don't have to be a person who has skills in coding or creating or something like that. It makes for a very easy tool to use in Agile sprints. The difference with LoadRunner was that you had to be a coding specialist, otherwise you could not run the application. That makes a great difference. People without those skills can use Qualibrate as a tool for flow documentations, and it's easy to maintain while providing test automation as well.

While you don't need to have coding skills, if you have the skills it makes some things easier to use. There are some options within the data, in the advanced options, that you can use. There are building blocks created by Qualibrate and some code that you can use. For example, for a date field you use code they have already made for you. You can specify today plus seven days so that your script is always running smoothly.

What other advice do I have?

I would advise using Qualibrate as a testing tool in a DevOps organization. It's a fine product. Other solutions are also okay. Tosca is also a great solution, but in the end, Qualibrate makes us better.

We don't use Qualibrate's Test Planning and test Execution Scheduling features yet, but we plan to do so this year. We are now growing from three to five licenses and management wants to know what the options are for test management and test planning so that we can schedule things for when the business wants to run the scripts. It can be every day or once a week. That's the way we plan to use Test Planning.

We don't use defects at the moment because we are now organizing API management to get JIRA onboard. Our process is still growing in production.

We are totally satisfied with what we now have in our possession with Qualibrate. We are very happy with the solution as it stands now.

Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
AJ
Test Analyst at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Helped us notably reduce manual testing efforts and pass the savings along to our client

Pros and Cons

  • "It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
  • "[Tech support is] 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."

What is our primary use case?

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.

How has it helped my organization?

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.

What is most valuable?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

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 Micro Focus 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.

How are customer service and technical support?

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.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

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.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
Dhananjay Singh
Team Leader at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Easy to use, the installation is clear, the support is good, and it has a good object recognition capability

Pros and Cons

  • "The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
  • "In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."

What is our primary use case?

In a very small location, we are using this solution for the infrastructure-related applications for testing and with a very low number of licenses, only two. 

We are planning to change to SAP S/4HANA.

What is most valuable?

The cost is the most important factor in this tool.

Feature-wise it's okay, and it's comparable with other tools. All of the features that we need for our testing are available. 

We have additional features such as reporting, and one other important feature, in UFT, is the AI-based object recognition plugin. This is a good feature in UFT.

What needs improvement?

UFT is more code-based, and we have to have knowledge of VB scripting to prepare the automation test cases. This is an area that is lagging behind with UFT.

One of the biggest challenges we face is not being able to easily interact with ALMs, other than HP ALM. This is an area that needs improvement.

In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable. 

Also, they can improve the coding interfaces to be easier and closer to English or any other international language, rather than a programming language.

For how long have I used the solution?

I recently started with this solution just two months ago, but the company has been using this tool for ten years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

This solution is quite stable. We have been using it for ten years with no technical challenges involved.

At times, we do have some problems connecting with other ALMs because somehow it is a managed connection.

There are many sharp and live connectivities provided by the UFT with other ALMS. We may face some hacks at times.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have not yet explored this area, because we are extending our requirements and our requirement is not expanding a lot.

In the future, we have to scale it for mobile applications and for other non-UFT areas. We may have to purchase additional licenses for mobile testing.

I think that this tool is scalable, but have not used this feature yet.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is good. 

They are very quick, the response time is very good. 

We are satisfied with the support.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was quite easy.

It's one installation file, then everything was just connected to the server. 

There is no complexity in the installation.

There are some tools in the market that are cloud-based and are much easier to use because you only have to log in and use it.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Pricing is the biggest feature. When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We are planning to use SAPS/4HANA for migration testing and to have more licenses for more testers.

What other advice do I have?

If someone is starting right from the beginning, I would not recommend they go with UFT. Instead, I would recommend Tosca.

The good points in UFT are the cost, it's easy to use, the installation is quite clear, the licensing model is quite good, and the object recognition feature is very good.

The con is that the code-based it not a good thing. Tosca has better features in terms of analytical capabilities. The impact analysis is available in Tosca, yet not offered in UFT. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
SR
Systems Analyst at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
Good API and we are happy with the UI, but we have to spend a lot of time on maintenance

Pros and Cons

  • "In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
  • "Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."

What is our primary use case?

We are using Selenium for web application automation and mobile automation.

What is most valuable?

In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature.

We use sticker boards and we are happy with the UI.

What needs improvement?

Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code. This means that we have to spend a lot of time on maintenance. 

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using Selenium HQ for the past two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Stability has been a problem during my testing. I have run the same code several times and faced issues for no apparent reason. Problems were identified, though the objects are all in place and no changes have happened in the UI, the test failed unwantedly. Then, we run the test case for the second time, the result will be true. This means that there is instability in the tests.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We only have a small number of test cases and haven't faced any problem with scalability. However, I am not sure what will happen when we try bulk testing.

There are three different teams for automation in my organization, and each has a single point of contact, so there are three different people.

How are customer service and technical support?

We have not been in contact with technical support. When we did have a problem, we were able to resolve it by finding the solution online.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We were using another set of tools for quite some time before we switched to Selenium HQ.

We are also using Appium, which has native support for Android and iOS devices.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was complex and it took us approximately five days to complete.

What about the implementation team?

Our in-house team handled the deployment.

One person is responsible for maintenance, although this is one of the problems that we faced. There is no separate team for maintenance.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

This is an open-source product so there is no cost other than manpower.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We conducted a PoC using UiPath for RPA. We are planning to try using Tricentis Tosca for codeless automation. We are continuing with our evaluation and ultimately, want to find the best tool.

What other advice do I have?

My advice for anybody who is considering Selenium HQ is that if there is a timeframe that is separate from the automation then it is suitable. However, if there is no timeframe and the issue does not fit into the automation, and it needs to be adapted manually, then this product is not a good choice.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Get our free report covering Micro Focus, Worksoft, SeleniumHQ, and other competitors of Tricentis Tosca. Updated: September 2021.
542,823 professionals have used our research since 2012.