We primarily use this solution in a mixed environment having web and desktop applications, integrating with each other and over an API Gateway. API based and Financial Services portal testing created using modern technology using C# and ReactJS.
The easiest route - we'll conduct a 15 minute phone interview and write up the review for you.
Use our online form to submit your review. It's quick and you can post anonymously.
We primarily use this solution in a mixed environment having web and desktop applications, integrating with each other and over an API Gateway. API based and Financial Services portal testing created using modern technology using C# and ReactJS.
- Brought a good environment of test automation
- Allowed a significant increase in Continuous Integration
- Great User Interface and ease of checking all your artifacts of Testing.
- Makes optimal use of Model-based Test practice in getting Object-references from the application.
- Script-less, so less maintenance headache for non-technical users also.
- Drag and drop functionality to create and re-use your Test Cases
- Excellent re-use of Excel functionality for formulas and functions.
- Conditions which let the test case branch off from the Template. Helps work out different scenarios for data.
- Has been tried out on SAP, Oracle Apps, and IBM COGNOS BI applications. With a few tweaks works well with these applications.
- IF and LOOP statements introduced with the latest version.
- Improved performance of Web-Based Tests. WHILE LOOP and IF made better and more responsive with added error recovery options.
- Intuitive based options available, along with a rudimentary record and play functionality.
- Next version will even have the visualization tools required to see the interconnections between the TCD and the Test Cases, along with the workflow in the TCD and Tests.
- New and improved visualization for multiple browsers and a totally new Wizard with TBox out of Box support has been added to the (v9.2) of TOSCA Commander.
- Access to Business Intelligence (BI) features of comparing a DB to another one, also have been added as plugins.
- Access to an Analytical Engine to view and get reports from the Test Runs.
- Version 13 has also brought in BI testing and improvements on SAP Test scenarios
- Upgrades to the newer version if extra Add-ins are installed sometimes causes weird issues.
- Needs a UI to be open and present when running the tests. Cannot visit the DOM like in Selenium.
- Needs a UI to visualize the test case development.
I have used it for the past nine years.
None seen as such, except it has a reliance on the Network for Licenses. If the network is lost, then the license will expire and crash/close the application.
The scalability depends on the Licensing model you take up.
Customer Service:
Excellent almost 16x5 service with issue resolution within a given 24-hour time frame.
Technical Support:
- Great Customer Support, technical from the first step.
I have been using HP QTP and Selenium for Test Automation. Switch was mainly due to Team constraints and management wanting to try a new tool which is easier for the Business Analysts also to collaborate with.
Setup is simple but requires learning of the tool and how it does things before you can optimally use it.
We had an in-house implementation.
We have seen an exceptionally good ROI, as we reduced the number of Tests from 4000 to around 89 scenario's which can be run in an automated manner with additional data (so in actuality we have around 1.4M tests, which can theoretically be run without human intervention). We have a full-stack CI pipeline for running these along with JIRA (requirement gathering and test results per Story), to the final TeamCity run for each check-in to the Dev branch.
Pricing is steep if you go for the premium model. My advice would be to buy a mix of licenses, depending on the need. The Tricentis Sales are rather good at helping you with this, once you give the intent to buy. They are not just shoving you the highest premium toy/license.
Take the online training on Udemy before you confirm the intent to buy it.
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.
