OpenText UFT One Reviews

OpenText UFT One provides significant time savings and efficiency in testing processes, particularly by automating tasks that require multiple resources for extended periods. Its AI capabilities reduce test creation time, enhancing productivity and allowing more thorough manual testing. Organizations consistently achieve a high return on investment by implementing automation, cutting maintenance costs, and supporting both legacy and new systems, making it preferable in various business environments.

Enterprise buyers evaluating OpenText UFT One should be aware that licensing is often perceived as expensive, with seat licenses around $10,000 and concurrent licenses approximately $17,000, including tax and maintenance. Although costly, the tool is praised for its automation capabilities and compatibility with ALM/Quality Center. Discounts may be available, particularly post-pandemic. Organizations need to consider both licensing costs and the potential return on investment through reduced manual testing efforts. Proper planning and skilled personnel are crucial for cost-effectiveness.

• "The tool's price is high."
• "OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
• "We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

OpenText UFT One is primarily utilized for functional and end-to-end testing, automating both web and desktop applications. Many organizations employ it for API testing, data validation, and business process automation. It aids in various testing scenarios such as regression, integration, and performance testing across numerous platforms. Its flexibility allows teams to create automated test scripts without deep programming expertise, supporting a range of technologies and easing manual test efforts.

Users report mixed experiences with OpenText UFT One support. Some praise the knowledgeable and responsive teams, rating them high for quick assistance. Others encounter slower responses and challenges resolving complex issues, resulting in delays and escalation. Many rely on third-party vendors or in-house teams instead. Users appreciate prompt service when issues are replicated, yet sometimes need more technical expertise and efficient escalation paths for critical problems.

Users generally found OpenText UFT One's initial setup to be straightforward and easy to implement, often highlighting simplicity and a well-organized process. Challenges included complex configurations for specific applications and integration with other tools, as well as tackling license server issues. Many appreciated the use of wizards and noted that technical knowledge facilitated the setup process. Some encountered difficulties, especially with object repositories and custom library creation, impacting the setup's complexity.

OpenText UFT One is generally scalable. Organizations report it being flexible, especially when well-integrated with third-party tools and frameworks. The system supports large-scale operations, though scaling may come with challenges such as license costs and setup complexities. Its adaptability varies between platforms but remains largely efficient for both small and extensive teams. Some reviews emphasize potential limitations, especially with execution speed and platform compatibility, yet users find it effective for broad and diverse testing needs.

Opinions on OpenText UFT One's stability vary; some users report it as highly stable, while others face challenges such as crashes, slow performance, or resource dependency issues. Many acknowledge stability improvements over time, although some encounter bugs, especially with new features. Resource constraints often exacerbate stability concerns, though upgrading memory alleviates some issues. Despite some users experiencing occasional instability, others commend its long-standing reputation for reliability and effective support for troubleshooting.