We primarily use the solution for any test completion intended for the system.

I don't really see a way it has improved our organization. I don't like this tool and I don't think that it's a successful example for automation. It's because of the tool's limitations that make the automation of a project difficult to execute successfully.

The solution is the company's product of choice. We disagree a bit in that regard.

The initial setup is relatively easy.

The solution makes test automation really difficult to maintain. The design of the test framework isn't ideal. They should work to improve it.

The concept is really old. It needs to be integrated with EMM, due to the fact that, obviously, EMM is the one to manage your test. It's almost difficult to manage test automation as a project. It's good for video testing, however, it's not good for a project.

The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded.

I've been using the solution for three years.

The solution is stable. However, that said, it's also slow.

The scalability is pretty good. If an organization needs to expand, it should have no trouble doing so.

Our particular projects have more than 50 people on them. Mostly they are from the IT automation team.

I didn't really ask for technical support in the past. We didn't really use much of the features, therefore we didn't have technical issues with that tool. I can't speak to their general responsiveness having never spoken with them directly.

I have never used a different solution. I merely use this solution as it is my company's preferred product.

The initial setup is not complex. It's quite straightforward.

We're just customers. We don't have any business relationship with Micro Focus.

Personally, the solution doesn't meet my expectations. The design is really old. It's possible we'll be talking about changing soon. I'm not sure if it will happen, however, I would prefer to try something new.

A person with no programming background might really like this solution. I, however, do not. On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate it at a five. I have a technical background and I don't really like using this tool. It's better for someone with less programming experience.

I have been running UFT scripts also, apart from the laptops and PC's. We primarily use the solution for end-to-end and functional testing and also for web applications and tunnel-based applications in the testing chain. It's one of the positive points of UFT that UFT can handle both.

I'm just managing the team, so I can only explain my experience via the experiences that I've heard from our team members. One of the aspects that the team really liked was the fact that you can also use the business process testing. 

If you take a look at BPT, the Business Process Testing part of UFT, it's also a step forward for making components. You can combine the components without diving into the code. That's a good thing.

The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high.

The problem with the solution is that you need to have highly specialized skills in order to make the scripts. Also, the scripts that you're developing for less scripted scenarios should be more productive.

The product needs to be simplified overall. They should look to competitors for ways to make things easier and less complex. It would give them a better market position. For example, they need to make it easier to compose a guest case and combine their modules and then create a test case from combining the modules together rather than scripting. 

If they simplify the product and work with building blocks, users won't need to do all the scripts.

The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients.

I'm an independent contractor and I have used the UFT for about two years.

The stability has been good. It's quite reliable. We haven't seen bugs or glitches. It hasn't crashed in any way.

I'm not very involved in the technical part of setting up the solution. There's a specialized team that does the setup. There's another team using the setup and monitoring everything. Whenever there are some problems within the setup, I can refer to another team that can deal with issues.

My understanding is the setup requires some technical work, so those setting it up should be a bit knowledgeable.

Our team has also handled automation.

Due to the fact that the solution was in the organization before I began working with the company, I'm not sure how long deployment took.

The licensing costs are quite high. 

The more you do automation, the more you spend on the license cost. Due to that, sometimes when there is a boom in spending, you will need to justify the extra cost.

We're curious to learn more about Tosca. I've heard also from others that Eggplant is quite good. I've wanted to know more about them for my own research and have been looking at them.

I just use the product as an independent contractor and customer. I don't have a professional relationship with OpenText.

I can recommend the product. If you're a company that is working with any legacy systems, and you need automation with both web-based applications and terminal-based applications. the solution would be a good thing to use.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall. I would rate it higher, however, there is a steep learning curve. You also need to be skilled in using the solution. Why learn such a specific program when there are other products, available as well? When there's such a steep learning curve, it might not make sense for every company. 

OpenText UFT is a very good tool for testing purposes. We use it primarily for API testing.

This tool integrates well into our environment.

We have the ability to develop automatically for different countries when using continuous deployment. We can use the same scripts, which is a nice feature.

One of the most valuable features is the analysis using artificial intelligence.

This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain.

We can develop negative test cases for API calls, which is helpful.

One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement.

I have had problems with the parameterization chaining.

Given that there is a lot of competition in the market from similar tools, the price should be reduced.

There should be line numbers in the code.

I have been using UFT One for eight years in different organizations.

This is a stable solution that is made up of several different applications.

The scalability is good.

I have also used Selenium and I find that OpenText is better. It is easier, for example, to develop automation. Also, OpenText is easier to maintain than Selenium.

It is a straightforward product to implement.

This solution is quite costly and there is no free trial available. We purchased it from SAP because we got a cheaper price.

The subscription fees are paid annually.

My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it integrates well into your environment, is easy to use, easy to maintain, and makes your development efforts more efficient. The entire development chain, including smoke tests, will be improved.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our environment is web-based, with over 2000 pages. There is no such thing as a primary use case since it is such a large and easily modifiable product. We have more than 1700 test cases already.

UFT has improved our ability to regression test. This frees up the test team to work on only the new portions of the software without having to worry that we are introducing new errors in other areas without knowing it.

The function library has made automation a much easier process since we do not use record and playback. Our scripts create data and then manipulate the data that has been created.

It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS.

We have been using OpenText UFT for seven years.

• 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.

To build an enterprise framework for functional automation with CI/CD features, automate all the standalone applications, and test applications in the cloud.

We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution.

Supporting Windows applications and many other applications, like PeopleSoft and PowerBuilder applications.

Integrating with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation). 

I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications.

With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources. It has allowed us to focus on newly added features.

• Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users.
• Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test.

Initially, it was supporting only Internet Explorer. This was not an issue, as the corporate choice, was to use that browser. In the meantime, Firefox and Google Chrome became popular and were introduced within the company, hence scripting became more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support those additional browsers.

This was long time ago, with version 8.2. It was automation of a pack of regression set with QTP. It was a success because my customer split regression testing and functional testing. Therefore, I could focus on the part which was identical across versions, then maintain the scripts after new features were introduced over releases.