OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Reviews

We have many data centers, and the infrastructure for these is moving to the Amazon cloud. They are working towards a total transformation. We have a lot of mobile applications. Some of these are Java-based, but a number of them are Angular and Ionic-based. Here, our usage is as a simple record and playback utility. We perform unit testing as a one-off operation, and once we complete development tasks, we do the unit testing. Our developers only have two machines, one for .NET and one for Java. There is no commitment to buy these tools by their licensed permit.

We haven't got the full suite. We had only UFT regular 14.53. They have now the UFT Developer. This is for the developers to perform unit testing. It improves our testing processes.

Our developers only use it for record and play. They use Java but don't need to understand much programming knowledge, so this helps. They don't check the end-to-end flow or regression, which is really only required when we have a new build, so it makes the job easier. It is also both mobile and Windows-based. The app development team has recommended the UFT Developer version, as this is cheaper. All our tests are run unattended, automated, and they run on remote servers. The Java and .NET programmers have said that "This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."

With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine. Whereas with Selenium, you can have five instances of the test on a single machine. The lack of multiple instance capability is not as useful.

We have been using UFT for a decade or more. This is my 8th year in the Information Technology services wing. Previously, I was working on the application development regression team. I am now in the newly formed digital enterprise transformation team. It is mostly cloud-based.

It is a stable product for our usage, which is mainly recorded and play actions. We also do functional testing via our automation team. They are not developers but know UFT well. We also use it for end-to-end testing. Any instability is detected via these internal processes. Although we do not test the entire regression suite, we use it for thorough testing of all our processes, as we have several long test iterations.

I didn't find them to be exceptionally good. They are very slow, and for every problem, they want you to raise a ticket. Very often, they are not available or open. We often have to close tickets due to a lack of a timely response.

UFT setup is absolutely straightforward. Out of the box, they provide a DVD, and then you extract an executable file, and this performs the full installation process. All you need then is a valid license to use the software.

It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items.

I would rate the UFT product 8 out of 10. It's cheaper, but they also have an enterprise license. If you take it, you get the license for both. However, we don't use both.

We are an IT-based company. We have our own product. I am primarily using Micro Focus UFT Developer for SAP applications such as SAP ECC and SAP HANA.

It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good.

UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner.

It is also quite expensive.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It is quite stable.

It is quite scalable. It can be used for multiple applications. It doesn't only cater to SAP applications. It can also be used for UI-based applications and mobile applications.

We have started with five developer licenses, and we are planning to have more licenses in place for more application automation.

It is deployed directly on my desktop. 

Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users. 

It is a great tool. It is not really rocket science. Once you learn it, you can easily adopt it.

I would rate Micro Focus UFT Developer an eight out of ten.

This solution is used for testing. It is usually used with our Quality Center solution.

The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application.

You need a more modern language to write test cases in because Visual Basic is not powerful enough.

I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability.

I have been working with Micro Focus UFT Developer since approximately 2011.

It can be very unstable. Basically, right now when I go running any of those test cases, I have to keep the remote machine that I'm running it on open, and can't minimize it or anything like that, because it's dependent on the actual location of the elements on the screen.

This is unlike Selenium, where you could run remotely and not have to log into the VM. On the UFT, you have to have it open and it's got to be up there. I'm assuming you are not running in on your own local machine, but rather in another environment. If you are running it on your own machine then it's going to be moving the mouse everywhere and you won't be able to get anything done. In my mind, this defeats the purpose of automation, to begin with, because you're stuck having to watch the testing.

This solution is not scalable at all. We have a test suite of approximately 45 test cases and things take three and a half hours to complete. I've got to sit there watching it the entire time.

I have worked with Selenium and while it is better in some ways, Selenium is not able to handle desktop applications

The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests.

We have a lot of manual test cases that are still waiting to be imported into UFT. The way it was set up was that they imported Excel spreadsheets. They never went in and defined the test steps or integrated with our Jira requirements.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to make sure that you've got your manual test steps documented somewhere for when the tests fail. In my case, I'm working with many tests that were written by other people. I'm trying to run them, and then debug when half of them are failing. There's no documentation around to explain what the tests were even supposed to be doing. So, the bottom line is to make sure that you've got documentation.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Technical support is good. 

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

We are satisfied with the support.

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.

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.

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

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.

I am a software developer and at my company, we use this solution for testing a banking ATM application that is written in C#. There is a customer screen that is part of a simulator for physical devices and different scenarios such as card and PIN entry have to be tested. Example test cases can be things like insufficient funds to dispense or it does not have the required bills. Another might be that the printer raises a hardware error. There are approximately 500 scenarios to test and in some, it will reject the transaction.

We have UFT deployed on a TFS server and the test agents are running the scenarios on virtual machines.

The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases.

UFT is sometimes difficult to run. For example, the customer application is represented by an embedded browser control, waiting for input. If I want to recognize the browser then I need to first start the UFT Pro environment. This can be done from Visual Studio or the management console. The problem is that UFT is not able to identify the object that is inside the browser. In one of my test cases where I have to select the card, I need to right-click on a picture and then select an item from a drop-down menu. I had opened a ticket in version 14.02 and I spent two weeks speaking with people from Nigeria, trying to convince them that there is a bug in the software. I was finally redirected to the engineers who solved the bug, but they sent me a DLL patch as opposed to an official update.

The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement.

My simulator is able to create a receipt as if it were printed from the ATM. However, in the current version of UFT, I am not able to perform an OCR on it correctly. The accuracy is about 20%. When I told support that our code was written in C#, they showed us some Java code and were convinced that it would work simply by using Java instead of C#.

I would like the Object Finder Application Center to be improved. It is a plugin that is used to recognize the object on the screen, but it runs very slowly and crashes often.

We have been working with UFT since 2017, almost three years.

I am currently having some issues with stability, although I'm not sure if it can be attributed to UFT Pro or the virtual machine. The errors require me to restart. It may have to do with the simulated environment being 32-bit where the maximum memory is four gigabytes. It is possible that there is an error in the configuration of our virtual machine.

I think that this solution is scalable.

All of our test cases run automatically and this solution is used by our entire team, which is about 15 people.

I would rate technical support a one out of five.

When I ask for something on the Micro Focus page, I never get a reply. It also took me a long time to get a reply and the answers that I received did not always fit my inquiry.

Prior to my work with UFT Pro and C#, two others had been writing tests using UFT Basic. This requires that the tests be written in Visual Basic. They are very slow and the Visual Basic version generates a lot of duplicate code. The C# version allows me to use a special library that helps to avoid code duplication.

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment took about two hours.

The only issue we had is that the ACL needed to be configured with the firewall.

I deployed UFT Pro on my own.

I did evaluate other options in the interest of changing solutions.

I tried UFT Testpack, which is a library for testing but it isn't very scalable. I also tried Atrium from Selenium, but it only works on Windows 10 and it is unable to automate Java Swing applications. There is a software application from SmarteSoft that is written in Java, but I didn't find a tool that was capable of automating this application.

I requested a trial of the most recent version and I have not yet received a response.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this solution is that I cannot automate everything. That had been my initial goal.

Even with the problems that I have mentioned, I think that this is one of the best solutions on the market right now. I tried changing solutions but I was not able to fully automate my application. If they just improve the support then it would be great.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I'm head of testing services and we are partners with Micro Focus.

Since we started using the Quality Center for the integration of all Microsoft tools, things have been much easier for us. Whatever integration we use between the tools creates a complete package of one set of tools. Many of our customers use Jira and Confluence and we can see how these tools integrate even with these things.

The issue with all the integration is that it can become very costly and expensive and we'd like to be able to recommend one single tool that will do it all.

We've been using the solution for at least six years. 

The solution is stable. 

Our projects are generally relatively small and we haven't had any issues scaling to our needs. I'm sure it's scalable in a larger environment. 

We have a separate in-house team that deals with technical support. 

The pricing and licensing can be a bit of a challenge. 

I definitely recommend this product. It's important to define your needs before choosing any solution. 

I rate the solution eight out of 10.

We use this solution with one of the software applications that we have in our company, where we are trying to automate the different scenarios or workflows that we have.

I would also like to see cloud-Ops.

The most valuable feature is the object repository. The objects get identified using the tool or where the different properties of the objects are being captured. 

Also, object identification is something that really fascinates me about UFT.

As I have only been using this solution for a few weeks, I am really not in a position to say what needs improvement. I need to use it more where I can explore all the available features. If I am not able to perform any operation, then I will be in a position to answer this area of improvement better.

In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure. Microsoft already supports the internet. 

I have been using MicroFocus UFT Developer for a few weeks.

We use version 15.20 or 1A.

It's a stable product.

This solution is scalable. At this time we have one user in our organization.

We are looking forward to using this solution in the future. We use the trial version and the team is considering the paid version. We have to see how it goes.

I have not contacted technical support. I have not needed to, there have been no issues.

Previously, we explored a few other solutions. One was TesComplete from SmartBear, and the other was Katalon Studio.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy.

The configuration that I have on the machine is the latest one. I haven't faced any issues. 

It didn't take long to deploy.

I am not aware of the pricing.

With the experience that I have, I think that it's very good, and I would recommend this solution to others.

Again, with the knowledge that I have in the few weeks that I have been using it, I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I primarily use this solution for the automation of regression testing in SAP.

The most valuable feature is stability.

This is a script-based tool and the usability needs to be improved.

Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful.

In the future, I would like to see module-based tests instead of scripting.

I have been working with UFT for about one year.

The stability is quite good and we haven't had any issues.

Scalability is not an issue except that you need to create quite a few scripts. It is not easy to just create new test cases for new solutions. When you have to consider other solutions or applications then it's a bit tricky.

The number of people using the UFT application is quite limited, at perhaps three or four. However, there are a couple of hundred people responsible for performing the tests it creates.

I would rate the technical support as okay, but not better. There are bugs between UFT and HTLM that they have not been able to solve. 

The initial setup is complex because of the integrations. A lot of knowledge is required to do the scripting, we did not have it, and it is difficult to find. Our deployment took about two months.

A consultant assisted us with the deployment and we were satisfied with the service.

Ultimately, due to the scripting, integration, and other functionality that is missing, we may switch to another solution in the future.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.