OpenText Functional Testing Reviews

The most valuable features of UFT to me are:

• UFT best supports automation of desktop based applications like AS400 apps, Java apps, SAP application, etc.
• UFT comes with built-in test frameworks like BPT. Using these frameworks test development can be started within no time.
• Lean FT provides the flexibility to the users to code in Java.
• UFT provides the flexibility to run the same tests against a variety of browsers like Chrome, Firefox and IE.

Manual execution of tests is always time consuming. With the help of UFT, the test execution time cycle was reduced from weeks to hours. This is essentially a giant leap. UFT framework enables to do easy and quick fixes to tests so that automation suite can still be run in case of changes in application. This feature is essentially very important for agile projects.

• Ability to run multiple Lean FT or UFT tests in parallel on the same machine.
• Lean FT to support desktop based applications as well.

I have been using HP UFT/QTP for the last 10 years.

There were no issues with the deployment.

UFT or Lean FT tests can only execute only one test on one machine. When the number of automation tests are very high, say 5000 to 10000, even with eight to 10 licenses, UFT can take over 24 hours for execution. This is unacceptable in agile projects. The regression test execution time is expected to be less than one hour for any agile project.

The customer service is prompt.

The technical support do not answer the questions to the point.

The initial set-up of UFT is quick and easy. The set-up instructions are straightforward and easy to understand. However, for a few applications such as AS400 and POS, the set-up requires a few installation steps to be followed in a specific sequence. If this is missed, then UFT may not recognize application objects at all.

I will always recommend setting up an in-house team with one test automation lead, one test automation architect and rest automation developers. However, if a vendor team offers a more cost effective solution, then the same team structure is to be implemented at their site.

For the QTP/UFT projects I have worked on ROI is always over 300% in the long term.

UFT offers a variety of licenses like seat licenses and concurrent licenses. If the automation team is small, say two to four, and fixed, node locked seat licenses would be preferable. Else, it is always advisable to go with concurrent licenses.

I have evaluated multiple paid and open source tools. I have evaluated paid tools like IBM Rational Functional Tester, TestComplete, Ranorex, Microsoft UI Automation, etc. Among these, HP UFT always tend to have better support for enterprise wide applications. However, if the requirement is to automate only a few applications, other tools can be considered. For web based application automation, Selenium WebDriver (open source) is the best automation tool.

It is always advisable to set the expectations right before starting any automation activity. Automation ROI is always negative for the first few months. The actual dividends of implementing automation will be reaped in the long term only. Also, automation is a continuous development/maintenance project same as application development. Without test maintenance, automated tests will not be useful in future.

• The most valuable thing in my opinion is the ease of moving objects for storage from AUT into the object repository and handling them. 
• Also, built-in features for database connectivity and SQL queries for data retrieval are a time saver. This eliminates the need for descriptive programming and writing huge chunks of code for relatively simple tasks. 
• Step delay and object sync options are also a very useful feature.

• It saves time and manpower. Test development and maintenance are faster and easier thanks to UFT. 
• Also, one tool covers several projects developed in different technologies while the approach to test design can remain the same. A relatively small team of trained professionals can cover a wide range of tests. 
• Due to UFT’s popup messages for errors and test execution results viewer, it is very simple to analyze the test results and figure out what went wrong, reducing the time needed for defect detection and test updates.

• When it comes to improvements, definitely stability and system requirements are something that could be worked on. In cases of longer tests (in forms of so-called Mega Scripts), there can be a seriously huge usage of virtual memory by UFT that can lead to SystemOutOfMemory exceptions which are showstoppers and a huge annoyance. 
• Object recognition can be tricky sometimes. For example, UFT doesn’t recognize the object during test execution, but when you pause the run and click “highlight in app” button in object repository it recognizes the object and you can continue with the run. You still get the “failed” status in run results although it was a UFT error.

We use UFT only for our own test automation needs.

We haven't had any issues with deployment.

See the stability issues we had above.

We've scaled it for our needs.

My advice would be to find at least one experienced automation developer who previously worked with UFT to provide practical know-how to others when implementing it for the first time. 

Learning the basics is easy and intuitive when you receive a proper training. But using UFT the wrong way can turn out to be cost ineffective. UFT is an expensive tool that can save you a lot of time and effort and provide great value for money if used correctly, but also turn out as ineffective related to value-for-money if used the wrong way. 

YouTube tutorials are not the best way of training people for using this tool, the best way is finding people who already have experience to work with it or provide proper training for employees who have never worked with it.

I've found the most valuable feature to be the ease of object identification using the products spy tool.

As with any test automation tool, the ability to run repeatable tests unattended during off hours saves lots of manual testing hours.

I would like to see IDE improvements (collapsible code, being able to open multiple test files simultaneously, having stack trace information). Some of these IDE features have been addressed in the more recent versions.

The solution works for the most part, but the IDE is horrible (although I hear version 12 has a revamped IDE and is much better) and as a result of VBScript being the language, there is no stack trace information available so debugging some errors is not an easy task.

I would like to also see support for other languages than just VBS. Java, Full VB, C#, etc.

I've used it for three years.

The application will occasionally crash or be unable to reach the License Server which causes test suites to fail.

The tech support is pretty good. Compared to Micro Focus’s SilkTest, it is much better. Although I haven’t used SilkTest in about 5 years so it may have improved.

I was not involved in the evaluation of this product. I inherited it.

I don’t really have information on the pricing/licensing as I wasn’t involved in that and wouldn’t be able to comment on the ROI. This solution has been in place for about five years and the tests are pretty reliable so I would think it has a pretty good ROI, but just guessing.

This solution probably wouldn't be my first choice. I have used Silk Test and Selenium. Selenium would probably be my first choice due to the high ROI, reliability, being able to have a IDE choice and support of multiple languages.

• 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.

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.

It is simple to record new automated scripts with the products record function. It makes the process easier since the application converts the recording into code, which you can then alter and configure to your specification.

The process has helped my organization greatly reduce time and cost when it comes to testing a new project. We created automated generic scripts that can test more quickly and efficiently than manually testing.

The application can be buggy at times and takes up a lot of memory on your PC. Occasionally it can crash or not even start, which causes the user to restart their PC. It would be beneficial if it operated more smoothly and didn’t cause PC problems.

I have been using it for a year

Deployment was simple.

The stability of the product was questionable at times, but not enough to where it hindered our work.

It's scalability was very flexible.

Customer service was helpful and knowledgeable

I did not use any different solutions or evaluate any others. This product was determined by upper management.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy to load and you're allowed to select the specific plugins you need to use with your applications.

We implemented it in-house since it wasn’t a large-scale implementation. I don’t have much advice or implementation since it's straightforward.

It's great to be able to go from one company to another and each one uses UFT similarly. It's also extremely versatile, in that you can pretty much use it with any type of application.

It allows us to automate hundreds of test cases that would normally have to be manually tested. The tests are also extremely reliable so it saves a lot of time on analysis. That's really the first and foremost benefit for us. We were doing quarterly releases as well as maintenance releases, which is quite a lot. So this solution has saved us a lot of effort and expense.

The knowledge base for getting started isn't terribly deep, so it requires you to have a bit of programming ability to pick it up and use it.

It's deployed without any issues for us.

It's fairly stable, but the problem is that it's not always updated and current. When something new comes up, it takes HP a long time to support it.

Scalability depends on the user. UFT is basically a sandbox and will be as flexible as you make it. So scalability can be high, but there are things that work against it. You're bound by the licensing structure, so in order to get bigger benefits, you have to have multiple copies. If you want to fun multiple simultaneous tests, you have to have the licensing to do that, and that costs a ton of money.

A lot of people are moving away from the big intertools. So people look at products all the time, and every time the budget comes up or every time they tell me to cut expenses or every time they get frustrated with it, a lot of the small-time tools and open-source tools get attention. So I've been evaluating those.

If you're an HP shop, you're probably going to go out and buy it. But I don't think new customers will sign on to replace, for example, Selenium. There are plenty of open-source options, and people who know how to implement UFT already know how to implement open-source codes. So I think that people who are using open source will stick with open source, and people who have significant investment inHP will stick with HP.

UFT is easy to use for functional testing, so for me it’s very important that it can travel across a large range of technologies. We can use the same tool for all the different kinds of automation that we do.

We’re already using LoadRunner and ALM. UFT gets along well with these other solutions, blending together with the ALM suite.

UFT is rather slow in execution, and that’s something that needs to improve. It runs strips rather slowly as other tools handle the same modular strips much faster.

It's not always very stable, but that depends on how you implement it in your organization. We put it on a separate server host in Singapore managed by our guys in Bangalore, so they make sure that they’re always available first.

Scalability is not that important for UFT since it’s not used by so many people at the same time. For us, there's only a few guys performing performance tests so scalability is not a big issue.

Technical support is quite good, though sometimes it depends on who you’re dealing with. Sometimes you get bad luck and get a guy who doesn't know much about it, is new, or is in training, but most of the time it’s all right.

It was rather easy and you really can do it yourself.

Ask a good HP expert how you need to do it and they'll tell you how to do it.