OpenText UFT One Previous Solutions

CT
Test Automaton Architect at Independent Health

They did try stuff with Robot Framework before I started. I don't know the history of that, but this was pretty much a relaunch of test automation efforts.

The AI capabilities provide multi-device test abilities without needing platform-development expertise, which is the best part about it. This sounds lazy, but because of what they have done, I don't have to know a thing about it. Here's what's cool: It can be a hybrid app or a native app. I don't care. As long as it is built, then I can push it to one of the devices and test it. When we first got the app, before we started using the AI stuff, I had the Appium Object Spy app, looking at things was not pleasant nor pretty. I had this laundry list of things that developers were going to have to add for me to even be able to identify the username field from the password field, shy of saying field one or field two. That is a terrible way of doing things. 

UFT One saved development time as well as an immense amount of learning time. For example if I handed somebody a web browser testing tomorrow with traditional automation, and they had never seen the internals of a web page, then they would stumble left and right because understanding what is under the covers of what you are testing is normally incredibly important. With this solution, it's actually not. You have to stop thinking like a back-end developer and start thinking like an end-user. This is a wonderful position to put yourself in, because this is really where the focus should be anyway. For me, it is starting to blend your traditional functional testing with UX testing, almost like they are blending together because of the techniques that I am able to use.

I've used Selenium on and off throughout my career. I have looked at tools from SmartBear. 

We do integrate with Applitools, which is a supportive thing. We don't consider them a competitor in this space. They are actually complimentary. 

We have never done anything with Tricentis. 

View full review »
Vinod-Parmar - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager, Technical Services Owner at Insignia

I use OpenText for areas like COBOL.

I think that in my company, a testing platform known as Mercury was used. After my company purchased a new testing platform, we are looking into what needs to be done.

OpenText UFT One was the third testing tool that was used in our organization. The issue in our company always stems from the fact that the GMs for testing have a certain comfort level based on which they bring their own set of people, and then they try to change the tool. My company has refrained from changing the tool we currently use in our organization because there is a lot of waste of money every time there is a product change. My company is dealing with the shoes related to how many tests are needed and how we can leverage the teams because, presently, we focus on having more permanent people in our organization, for which the standardization of tools is important.

In our company, we use IBM TOWER, with which we have discussions with OpenText. IBM TOWER is a legacy product that is really bad with the security part. IBM TOWER is an expensive product to upgrade, making it an area of worry for our company. There are multiple subsidiaries of our organization where IBM TOWER is used. IBM TOWER can be considered a product that falls under the category of an end-of-life tool.

View full review »
MS
Senior Test Automation Consultant at PROSSE

I have worked with other tools like Ranorex and Katalon, but UFT One is comparatively faster.

View full review »
Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT One
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about OpenText UFT One. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
TC
India CoE Leader at LyondellBasell

We recently started using Tricentis Tosca. We've used it for about three months. It offers lesser scripting, which may be easier from an end-user perspective. It's also well aligned with SAP.

View full review »
HT
Senior Consultant at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees

We're currently using UFT One.

View full review »
Madhavi Gudipati - PeerSpot reviewer
QA Architect at PACCAR Inc

I have used previously C Sharp and Selenium HQ, and I prefer them over Micro Focus UFT One.

View full review »
Paul Grossman - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead QA Engineer at Guaranteed Rate

Prior to using VBScript-based UFT/QTP, I used Mercury Interactive's C-based Winrunner before the product was discontinued.

View full review »
SwathyBhavani - PeerSpot reviewer
Delivery manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

I have hands-on experience with Micro Focus. I have, implementation knowledge of LoadRunner on Worksoft. And I did a proof of concept for that kind of model for one of my projects. That is my experience with these tools.

Micro Focus UFT is a good product in my opinion. I can say it's a stable system and it's a legacy. We have been using it for a long time. You can see that the resource pool that I would get if I worked for UFT is quite good. In this regard, I believe Micro Focus UFT would be my first choice for SAP implementation; however, they are not as up-to-date with industry demands as the other providers.

View full review »
BM
Team Lead at T-Systems International GmbH

There are a few alternatives when you want to automate tests for non-web applications. For example, Java applications or PowerBuilder applications, or .NET applications. UFT One is really, really good. When you only have to automate tests for web applications, then Selenium is maybe the better solution since it is much cheaper. It costs nothing as far as I know. You have to learn some programming language, however. You need to use Python or Java or something else in conjunction with Selenium. Maybe the first hurdle is a little bit steeper than using UFT. Then, when you can build some framework around Selenium, then maybe when I would have the personal choice, I would choose Selenium - only for web applications. While we know that there are some alternatives to UFT for non-web applications, we know there are not that many. Tosca is one of the big players. However, we don't know it. We only know that it exists, and most people who use it say it's really good.

View full review »
VK
Senior Load Performance Consultant at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees

I've always been familiar with QTP and UFT. The other product that's taken over the marketplace is Selenium because it is open source, free of charge. It is in 90% of all the organizations, whereas QTP I believe has lost the market share.

View full review »
RN
Senior Associate at Cognizant

We have used a lot of different tools. We have used Selenium and Python as well as Java-based REST API for regular testing. With UFT one, we have all the solutions under an umbrella, so we don't have to think about other tools. It also supports API and HTML testing. Selenium only supports Java, and there is no support for HTML.

View full review »
PA
Head of Testing - Warehouse Solutions at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees

We used QTP and LoadRunner in the past.

View full review »
TA
Test Automation Consultant at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees

We utilized QuickTest Pro (known now as OpenText Unified Functional Testing) for between eight and 10 years.

View full review »
SM
Associate Manager at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees

Previously, we did not use another solution.

View full review »
it_user567828 - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Test Leader with 1,001-5,000 employees

UFT was already installed upon my arrival to the organisation. However, having said that, it is the solution I would have gone for. UFT really doesn’t have a comparable competitor in that space. They used to have competition, but I don't think they really have competition anymore.

View full review »
DR
Automation Test Consultant at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees

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.

View full review »
VR
Team Lead at Accenture

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.

View full review »
it_user358305 - PeerSpot reviewer
Testing Coordinator at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees

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

View full review »
it_user357477 - PeerSpot reviewer
Principal Consultant | Contractor Manager at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees

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

View full review »
it_user482850 - PeerSpot reviewer
Enterprise DevOps Leader, Program Manager at a media company with 1,001-5,000 employees

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

View full review »
NK
Lead Analyst at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees

We didn't have a previous solution. We were looking for a solution where, once the elements of the object repository are created they stay there. Also, when there are changes to the application, how quickly would it be able to transition as a result? We were mainly looking for object identification and consistency of the tool.

There aren't many tools on the market for automating desktop application testing, but one of them is OpenText UFT. We tried UFT and it seemed to be suitable, so we started using it for automation testing. It suited our requirements for desktop application testing.

View full review »
it_user347685 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. QA Engineer at a retailer with 501-1,000 employees

We previously used Selenium Webdriver.

View full review »
it_user347646 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Technical Engineer with 1,001-5,000 employees

Over the course of my career, I used Rational Robot back before IBM bought them and Silk Test as well as Silk Performer when Segue owned them both. All good tools, but not a fair comparison since I used them so long ago. I will say I loved working with Silk Performer.

View full review »
it_user348159 - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant I at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

SOAPUI Pro and ReadyAPI were used for API testing. HP UFT was used in conjunction when automation needed to be set up. With the synchronization with HP Quality Center, HP UFT saved time.

View full review »
it_user567963 - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

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.

View full review »
it_user378180 - PeerSpot reviewer
SAP Consultant at KCA Deutag

This is my first involvement with automated testing software.

View full review »
it_user468276 - PeerSpot reviewer
QA Technical Lead at a consumer goods company with 1,001-5,000 employees

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

View full review »
it_user345183 - PeerSpot reviewer
Managing Director at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

We didn't use a previous solution.

View full review »
it_user347655 - PeerSpot reviewer
Assistant System Engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees

Initially, we started doing automation using Selenium, but we could not succeed with it, so we migrated from Selenium to HP UFT. We now have a successful solution.

View full review »
it_user343329 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Product Development Engineer with 5,001-10,000 employees

I was using Selenium with Java to do automation, but as Selenium could not help me do Windows based application automation, I switched to UFT as a new solution.

View full review »
it_user341058 - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Test Engineer at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees

I did, and I switched because the newer tools have many features and many options such as browser support, responsive design, and is faster. However, there are free and open source tools.

View full review »
it_user176970 - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Automation Engineer at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

No previous solution was used.

View full review »
it_user461790 - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant at a tech consulting company with 51-200 employees

We previously used WinRunner and switched due to ease of implementation.

View full review »
it_user347037 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Automation QA Engineer at a tech vendor with 501-1,000 employees

I used Mercury QuickTest Pro 8.2 for three years. I still use IBM Rational Robot, TestComplete, and some frameworks based on Selenium WebDriver.

View full review »
it_user346101 - PeerSpot reviewer
Principal Consultant with 51-200 employees

We didn't use any previous solutions.

View full review »
it_user251862 - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation Engineer at HealthNow

It was already in place when I joined and has always been this solution.

View full review »
reviewer789918 - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant

This was long time ago, with version 8.2. It was automation of a pack of regression set with QTP. It was a success because my customer split regression testing and functional testing. Therefore, I could focus on the part which was identical across versions, then maintain the scripts after new features were introduced over releases.

View full review »
EZ
Test Solution Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

I have never used a different solution. I merely use this solution as it is my company's preferred product.

View full review »
it_user379695 - PeerSpot reviewer
Engineer at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees

We previously used Selenium. Our clients choose their IDEs and I integrate for them.

View full review »
it_user357675 - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Test Specialist at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees

I used different tools and a different solution, e.g. Selenium in a previous company. I didn’t choose this product as it was in place when I joined.

View full review »
it_user341283 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Software Quality Assurance Engineer at a tech vendor with 501-1,000 employees

I have worked with Selenium and TestNG. This product was a customer request.

View full review »
Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT One
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about OpenText UFT One. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.