OpenText UFT One Reviews

The most valuable features to me are--

• Business process components (can be dropped into test flow)
• Keyword-driven test cases (one of several automated testing frameworks)

It's allowed business analysts to work with automation scripts without requiring them to have programming knowledge.

I'd like to see a scanning feature that shows the changes that happened in an application and the auto updates them. This would help reduce the time in maintaining scripts.

I've used it for six years.

I did not encounter any issues with deployment.

Yes, there were stability issues sometimes.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

Customer service is excellent.

Technical support is good.

We didn't use any previous solutions.

Initial setup was straightforward.

We used an in-house team for implementation.

It's expensive, but it's worth the money.

We didn't evaluate any other options.

HP UFT is a popular tool used by many organizations, hence there are many forums out there to help us in case we face any challenges.

For us, object recording is the most valuable and most used feature.

We've used it just during a Proof of Concept period.

We noticed during our PoC that it needs parallel execution, not execution via ALM.

I used 11.5 two years ago, and I just updated to 12.51 one month ago, but I have not really used it yet.

There were no issues with the deployment.

There were no issues with the stability.

There were no issues with the scalability.

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

It's hard to install the license seat because the web-based GUI is not user friendly.

I implement it with in-house teams.

The add-on I am using has limited resource on-line that makes it a challenge to use. Compared to Selenium, I prefer Selenium. However, I may want to see HPMC before I can make better suggestions.

The Object Spy in UFT is very valuable for spying on controls in our mobile application and viewing their properties and values.

I would like a version that works quicker. Also, a lot of people can't afford it because it's expensive.

I've been using it for two years. Each project is different, and it is sometimes two months or six months at once.

I haven't encountered any issues with deployment.

It's stable, and there's no issues with instability.

We've scaled just fine, and there's no issues here.

Technical support was very helpful and good.

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.

It was already in place when I got here, so I don't know if the initial setup was straightforward or complex.

• Object repository
• Supported keywords
• API testing

UFT is easy to use so the QA team is not required to have much programming skills. VBScript language is also an advantage that it has.

I think that UFT should support more robust keywords to work with a low number of applications under test.

I've been using it for two years.

It often crashes.

6/10 - I posted questions on the HP forum and mostly received no feedback. I also saw that people post questions and help each other.

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

Everything is readable and easy to understand.

We did it in-house.

Open-source automated testing engines are also good.

I found all the features to be valuable. I can't pinpoint just one. It's just a very useful UI automation testing solution.

It allowed us to provide automation test coverage in various areas of an online web application, including web services..

• More details when run-time errors occur (product related - not user or application related)
• Proper HTML reports
• Console logging
• CI integration with console logs

I've used it for approximately two years.

No real blockers. The application we were testing was pretty much covered by the tool.

I didn't need to use them.

I didn't need to use them.

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

Depending on the approach you follow, the set-up is complex in different ways. Having an Object Repository that is not stored but built through the run is the most difficult and time consuming task. Custom libraries are also very time consuming to build.

In-house implementation for a customer.

Setting this up from the beginning requires a lot of reading and effort spent. You need an experienced person to set the framework up and it will also take time to implement it so the ROI will be realised in the future.

• Realizing more test automation scenarios and managing the entire DevOps lifecycle.
• Running test cases along the entire day.

The approach to the automation test makes the test activities more interesting and improves the software quality.

The ability to base the test automation on object recognition with the possibility of managing the object repository is the most valuable feature. 

In my opinion, the improvement of the object recognition of new technologies and the capacity to catch more performance info should be desirable.

- Built in object repository and storing elements.

- Less coding experience.

- Reporting dashboards.

- Supports desktop, web and mobile product automation.

- Continuous integration is possible with QC and Jenkins.

- Good customer support.

- Various formats of reporting support should be possible.

Right now UFT supports exporting reports in either HTML or PDF in short or detailed format. If exporting reports could be extended to Excel, csv, XML, XSLT, mht formats that would be greatly appreciated.

- They should improve performance and consistency during execution.

There will be performance degradation on the test environment due to long continuous executions of automation scripts which leads to inconsistency of results, a better way to resolve this problem should be addressed at some point.

We migrated a number of the tests from OpenText UFT One to SOAtest. The biggest change was moving from validating in the GUI with OpenText UFT One to validating in the database. We are not currently testing the browser extensively because our webpage is not customer-facing but is instead an administrative tool.

OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier. However, it required knowledge of the scripting language, VBScript, which is limited compared to Visual Basic. Despite handling web pages effectively, dependency on the browser for validation presented stability issues when Windows would exhaust memory, causing regression testing crashes.

OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing. This experience suggests a need for improvements in handling memory efficiently.

One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.

It is not current, but when we dealt with HP, I would rate the support as a six or a seven.

Neutral

We switched from OpenText UFT One to SOAtest.

Setting up OpenText UFT One was generally straightforward. However, we had to develop some DLLs to perform certain tasks that the system couldn't handle by itself, requiring additional effort. We built various libraries to improve scripting efficiency and speed, which took time and evolved over the course of our use.

I might rate OpenText UFT One around a five or six, based on my past experience, so my rating would be a 5. Name usage should be limited to personal names for publication. I am currently in a low-level manager position and plan to retire in three months, which may affect my access to follow-up communications.