OpenText Functional Testing Reviews

We are currently using it for migration.

Micro Focus UFT One is useful. However, there is an issue with the scripts. We are going to collaborate with multiple automatic specialists to identify the problem. If we can fix the issue, we will continue with UFT, otherwise, we'll switch to other automation tools.

The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great.

The solution does not have proper scripting, which impacts the solution. We are currently deciding whether we want to keep the UFT and will decide by the end of December. We paid a lot of money for the UFT, and we will only drop it as a last option.

We have been using this solution for four years. It is deployed in the client-server application with SAP.

The performance is not great, which is why we are currently conducting a review.

The solution is very scalable for a UFT. We have more than ten people using this solution.

There is a gap in technical support which is also part of our review. We've raised issues in the past, which have not been fixed in two years.

We used QTP and LoadRunner in the past.

Our deployment was completed in-house, and we have an in-house software development and architecture team. We do all our products and services and also provide services to third parties.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. Micro Focus UFT One is outstanding. All HP processes are excellent. I used to use HP Test Director, HP QC and HP ALM. So I am confident that Micro Focus UFT One is useful.

The use cases for OpenText UFT One vary from one department to another. We've got so many applications within Dominion Energy, but as of now, most groups are scripting the test cases themselves, even though they're not programmers and they don't have a true understanding of Visual Basic, which is a language used to script QTP. So the groups out there are doing it independently. I think they're doing mostly a record and playback, data-driven approach, which means they parametrize the data. But they're not specifically programmers, they can't make those scripts very sophisticated. And that's what I'm seeing. So it was my suggestion that we develop a framework for them in Selenium.

I don't think that OpenText UFT One has really improved it much. Until we move over to a framework where they don't have to spend so much time in creating data-driven scripts that become obsolete once a new version of the application becomes available. It may be doing some things for them, but I think it's probably improved their overall efficiency by maybe 20%. But once they have the framework, I think they will be able to operate this framework 24/seven in unattended mode. And that's when you see 100%, 110% improvement in efficiency. So we're not there yet.

We're not using the web services testing piece. They should, but I think they're using other open source tools such as Postmaster. But they're using QTP strictly for scripting automation test cases.

In terms of what could be improved, they need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user and if we're going to spread this throughout the organization, we'll need to spend a whole lot of money. The company can afford it, but we're going to try to promote Selenium as the open source automation tool.

All of these automation tools are a tad finicky. They tend to freeze on us once in a while and we get an 85% pass ratio every time we run them, but 15% of the time these tools will fail. And it's not the tool, it's that the browser that they're opening may freeze up when it's time to do something on an application. I haven't looked at Selenium yet. I'm going to get some exposure to it later in the year or next year. But that's the tool that I'm going to focus on and replace QTP with. Because Selenium is free of charge and it's the standard in large corporations these days.

As for what should be included in the next release, I don't know much about that because I haven't used QTP in a while. I don't know how much better Selenium is than QTP except for the fact that it's open source. But as far as the features are concerned, I was okay with using QTP back in 2007 when I used it.

Since I'm not an automation tester, I last used OpenText UFT One in 2007. But now I'm promoting it. I'm also promoting Selenium as an open source solution for future automation testing because the company can set up that framework and everybody can use it. And I'm having a meeting with the users next week on that. So we're going to be promoting Selenium over UFT.

But I have used UFT within the last 12 months.

I think it's a stable product because it's been around for well over 14, 15 years now. And I think it's stabilized QTP and UFT.

I think OpenText UFT One scales very well, but because it's not widely used... You can use one license per seat or per user who's automating it. So it doesn't need to scale, it works well enough with one single license per user. It's not meant for more than two users using the same license anyway.

Mostly developers use this product. They have a development background in Visual Basic and the use of the tool. With my current client, it's the business analysts that are doing the automation using this tool and it's not being used effectively. You have to have some form of development background, especially in Visual Basic.

I've never used it for QTP or UFT, but I know some people who are supporting this product in the client site. They're okay with it. They get a response within 24 hours.

I'd give support a nine out of 10.

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.

The initial setup for UFT is straightforward.

My advice to anyone regarding this solution is that if they have the money to purchase it, they could, but Selenium would be the first choice because it's more widely used.

UFT quite expensive. It's about $3,000 per seat, whereas Selenium is free of charge. So if you had 20 users who need to use it, you'd have to spend close to $60,000 on QTP plus annual maintenance costs. Whereas with Selenium, it's free of charge and you get all the support you need on the internet.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis. Whereas with Selenium, because it's open source, you're relying on the community to give you that technical support if you have issues and if you can't resolve them, there is really nobody to give you a patch or anything. So I think that with QTP having OpenText behind it, you've got some protection.

The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue.

UFT One is great for recording and automating test cases.

The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner.

One area for improvement is its occasional slowness.

I have been working with OpenText UFT One for a long time.

UFT One was generally stable and didn't have significant downtime or performance issues. The only notable drawback was its slower performance during certain tasks.

UFT One itself appeared to be fairly scalable, as it generally runs one test at a time. However, it can be integrated into LoadRunner for combined testing, although I haven't delved deeply into that aspect.

The installation and setup of UFT One were relatively easy. I had to install it on my computer, and the only requirement was access to a license server. Overall, it wasn't a complex installation process. The deployment took about an hour.

I would recommend UFT One to those considering its use. It is straightforward to set up, especially with the AI capabilities, although it can be slow at times. Despite the occasional slowness, it is much easier to use now compared to earlier versions and can save a significant amount of time compared to manual functional testing. Overall, I would rate the solution as a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for defect tracking and test automation features.

They should include AI-based testing features in the solution for assessment and identifying potential databases.

We have been using the solution for more than ten years.

It is a scalable solution. I rate its scalability as a ten.

The solution's customer service is excellent. They always prioritize our tickets.

Positive

The solution's initial setup process is easy. I rate it as a ten.

We purchase the solution's yearly license. It costs 700k. There are no additional costs involved.

The solution is easy to integrate and adapt for manual testing. It manages tests very well. It is an excellent tool in terms of customization. I rate it as a nine.

We use the solution for API functional testing to analyze user interface, business logic outputs, etc.

The solution's user interface is good. It is easy to use for a nontechnical test as well.

They should improve the solution's tracing functionality. There should be an automated feature to load the backlog of test requirements.

We have been using the solution for eight years.

It is a stable solution. I rate its stability as an eight.

We have three solution users in our organization.

The solution's technical support team is good. Although it could have been faster while resolving the licensing error issue, we encountered some time back.

Positive

The solution is easy to install. The setup process takes a few hours and requires only one executive.

The solution's price is reasonable compared to other vendors. I rate its pricing as a four.

I advise others to speak with automation engineers to know the success criteria for the solution's proof of concept. Moreover, UFT needs to give insights on production status like Worksoft or Tricentis. Thus, I rate it as a seven.

I recently took became a QA for our company and was trained on various tools including the solution as part of job orientation. 

We have 100 engineers in our company who use the solution for automation testing. 

It is very easy to create shared repositories that can be used throughout all testing. This feature makes our jobs easier. 

The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute.

The solution's size could be improved because it takes up a lot of space. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

There was one issue so support was emailed for assistance. I am not sure of support's response because it was handled by our unit manager.

The setup process could be improved because reinstallation is required if you miss an add-in during initial setup. It would be beneficial to have an installation outline or information about selecting add-ins. 

Deployment is quick and takes only a couple of minutes. 

Technical support from Edgewood guided us through the initial setup and installation. 

One in-house engineer can handle ongoing maintenance. 

Our engineers were also were trained on and use TestComplete. 

I like the direction the solution is heading and am really happy with how they keep adding new features. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code.  

General users can create the scripts, and you can bring in an engineer if you're struggling with one of them. It saves you money because you don't need an engineer there the whole time. You only need an engineer for your initial planning and implementation.

I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better. 

We haven't experienced any stability issues so far. 

UFT One is easier to scale because you can bring in more people without a strong coding background. As long as you have a good plan, it's fairly simple to take an entire team of manual testers and have them create test scripts. It's much better than getting a whole group of engineers to set up and build the test cases.

Setting up Micro Focus UFT One is straightforward. 

UFT One's license is somewhere in the $5,000-a-year range.

I rate Micro Focus UFT One eight out of 10. if you're considering UFT Developer versus UFT One, you should consider the skills of your team. You should go with UFT One if you want to leverage more people who have testing knowledge. If you're only using the engineering team and plan on not using the business, then you can save quite a bit of money by going with UFT Developer.

UFT (erstwhile QTP) is a widely popular test automation tool. During my initial days, I used UFT extensively to automate test cases. Now, with the latest version of OpenText UFT One, there are added features that address the new-age testing requirements. In my current position as Practice Head of Test Automation competency at a Tier 1 company, we propose various befitting tools to our existing or new customers. Whenever we work on a particular solution or requirement, we propose automation tools to support the entire environment to support end-to-end automation. If my customer is looking for an automation solution, they will typically ask, "Can you provide a solution to automate my end-to-end scenario?" Every proposal or potential requirement is a new business case for us.

In some of our recent customer requirements, we have proposed the OpenText UFT One tool. The primary reason behind this is that a customer may have different systems, for e.g., a mainframe system, which is a legacy technology, their current web applications, like AngularJS or ReactJS, could include SAP ERP. In such an ecosystem, UFT One is the right fit to automate end-to-end systems.

Scripting is a basic feature of UFT One. Some tools may use programming languages like Java, Python, or Ruby; but UFT One uses a very basic, simple programming language called VBScript. The advantage of VBScript for a manual tester is if he/she has a basic knowledge of automation, and loops/conditions, then he can easily understand whatever script is created in UFT One, using VBScript. The point is that VBScript is very easy to understand with minimal knowledge. It can easily be modified as per requirement. UFT One all the technologies including a legacy to modern technologies.

For one of our customers, we proposed integration between UFT One and Azure DevOps (ADO). We were able to easily establish that integration, which means the solution's integration capability with third-party tools is s. With some tools, you may need additional effort to communicate with source code management (SCM) tools, whereas UFT One connects easily. There is a keyword view available in UFT One. Using that keyword view, you can see all the statements in proper order.

UFT One has its own feature called Test Combinations Generator to prepare test data. If I have data in an Excel file, then it is very easy to create an object in either Notepad, file system object, or database object. We can easily retrace the data.

Particularly, I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed.

UFT One supports AI features to automate web and mobile applications. For example, suppose, if earlier there was a button in the left corner, which now has moved to the right corner. In such a situation, we would need to update the script. However, with AI, there is no need to update the script. Within the screen, if that particular button is placed anywhere on the screen, then we can easily handle it and the script will not fail. The integration part is very easy for mobile automation, as well.

We can also automate PDF and forms, using UFT One. For example, one of our customers prepared a lot of macros in an Excel file and created their own custom options in the toolbar. Their requirement was to automate the Excel file, but not read the data, so we had to handle the different icons in the Excel file. Therefore, it generated the pivot table, selecting different options in the pivot table and validating some third-party applications.

UFT One can automate different technologies like SAP, Oracle, SFDC, Microsoft products, Mobile applications, and many more technologies.

From a sales pitch perspective, everyone is now looking for script less automation, whether they are using the feature or not. So, if UFT One is made as a script less tool entirely, that would be very good.

UFT also has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts.

We have been using the solution for 13 to 14 years. I started by using an older version of UFT One, Quick Test Professional (QTP) 6.5.

UFT One is 100 percent stable. There have been no crashes of any kind.

It is easily scalable. It supports increases in automation as well as integrates with third-party tools, like ALM Octane and Jenkins.

OpenText technical support is prompt. They will try to get you a proper solution to your inquiry.

It is very easy to install and configuration is not required.

Deployment time takes three to four minutes, though it depends on the RAM and performance of the processor. However, if you install MS Office, that will definitely take some time.

Our customers are always looking to reduce their efforts. This solution will give you such an advantage.

Depending on the landscape and stability of the customer application, they should see ROI (or the breakeven point) within six to nine iterations.

The license is important. If the license is up and running when you open it, there won't be any issues.

Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very cheap. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so OpenText offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive.

There are a lot of tools available in the market, however, the primary advantageous feature identified in UFT One is simple: It supports legacy to modern technologies. This is why I propose UFT One.

Everybody is aware of mainframe systems because of Y2K. This solution supports a lot of terminal emulators that communicate and connect to mainframe systems. That is one of its key advantages. Some automation tools provide only a fewer number of terminal emulators, but UFT One supports a lot of terminal emulators to communicate with mainframes.

If someone is new to test automation, we will typically propose UFT One.

OpenText recently started offering UFT One as a PaaS, which has been helpful for our customers.

I would rate this solution as a nine (out of 10).

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. 

We use Micro Focus UFT One for testing web pages and the script is in AngularJS.

Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent.

I have been using Micro Focus UFT One for approximately three years.

Micro Focus UFT One is not stable.

The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good.

The support from Microsoft is not good. They are very lazy in answering anything. If we create a request, it takes months for them to respond to us.

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

The setup of Micro Focus UFT One is easy.

I would advise others to use Selenium HQ and C Sharp because they are better, consistent, reliable, and scalability than Micro Focus UFT One.

I rate Micro Focus UFT One a five out of ten.