Share your experience using OpenText UFT Digital Lab

I use the solution in my company to test desktop applications.

The decision-making capabilities of the product help the product grow.

The desktop applications have performance issues since they don't work properly or don't detect objects properly, making it in an area where improvements are required. The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing.

I have been using OpenText UFT Digital Lab for three to four years. I use the solution's latest version.

I have experience with SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis Tosca. My organization chose OpenText UFT Digital Lab over SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis Tosca.

I haven't tried browser testing with the tool, but I have tried using it on two to four different desktop applications.

The improvements in testing capabilities from the use of the solution are reflected in the area of object detection methods.

For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily. The tool provides data-driven testing, which helps continuously use test cases.

I don't think the real device testing in OpenText UFT Digital Lab impacted testing accuracy.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

There are various use cases, each tailored to the specific needs of our customers. When we consider Application Lifecycle Management (ALM), the use case significantly differs from Unified Functional Testing (UFT). Our primary objective is to assist customers in optimizing their software development life cycles. This involves facilitating decisions based on platform usage and the data entities they input into the system. We help them link these components, conduct automated functional and performance testing, and ultimately provide a definitive decision-making process. The goal is to ensure that when a customer is ready to launch a product or software, they can make a well-informed decision, either to proceed confidently or address any issues that may arise based on the data and testing results available within their systems.

There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps. Also, traceability between various entities is of paramount importance. When introducing a new requirement or user story, it's crucial to establish links to associated defects, track test runs, and monitor test statuses. This traceability allows us to comprehensively map and document every aspect of the application delivery life cycle.

I believe there's always room for improvement in various aspects. For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively.

On a personal level, I have twenty-five years of experience with this solution, with the most recent six years being spent at my current company.

It provides excellent stability capabilities. I would rate it nine out of ten.

The scalability of the solution is quite remarkable. Our typical clients fall within the enterprise and medium-sized business categories. I would rate it nine out of ten.

While it's common to encounter a few bugs, even in the generally available versions or editions, they are typically quite minimal. The positive aspect is that if you do come across a bug, the support team is available to assist in resolving the issue.

Neutral

The initial setup is relatively straightforward. I would rate it seven out of ten.

When it comes to deployment it is challenging to provide a specific timeline because it varies depending on the customer and the product in question. Implementation can range from weeks to days to months, and it is unique for each customer and is influenced by the level of attention and focus dedicated to the particular product and practice that is pursued.

Determining the value of the solution based solely on its price can be challenging. While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective. Aside from licensing fees, there are a few additional considerations. If you opt for a perpetual license, there will be ongoing maintenance fees, typically a small percentage, paid annually. If you choose not to handle the implementation yourself and instead rely on an OEM or partner's professional services, there will be associated implementation costs over time, as well. On a scale of ten, I would rate the pricing at about seven.

I highly recommend OpenText's end-to-end solution for application lifecycle management. I can say it ranks among the top three options in this regard. My recommendation is not solely based on its affordability, but rather its effectiveness. When the right processes, people, methods, and frameworks are employed, OpenText's solution can yield substantial benefits and a rapid return on investment. It is crucial to implement and utilize the product correctly without altering it into something it wasn't designed to be. I would rate it nine out of ten.