OpenText Functional Testing Reviews

I would say the most valuable is that we can get people started off really quickly on solutions because we've been partners with HPE for a long time and it helps us tailor the product to ours needs. When we have issues with something we can get support directly from HPE since we paid for it.

The fact that it works with a vast number of technologies works for us because our internal customers use the tool for testing a lot of different applications. That's probably the best feature that it has for us.

There's a lot of centralized testing from some perspectives and our main goal is to provide for a bunch of different groups at a lower cost so we centralize licensing and distribute it to various people. The biggest benefit of that is that it allows us to empower the people that need the solutions instead of manually having them develop the solutions on their own.

In the past three years it's become a lot more stable. Prior to that, we saw a lot of issues with stability and a lot of patching and concern from our internal customers that they couldn't rely on the tool to always be there when they needed it.

We don't scale it out on as large of a basis as ALM.

Our biggest issue was in the switch over from HP Inc. to HPE. I think we had some trouble getting in touch with higher level support so we spent a lot of time going through basic support where the people that work with the tools have a lot of experience with the tools. We think that it would be better if we could bypass the lowest levels of support on some issues. I can understand the process that we usually have to go through but more recently our reps have been helpful in getting us to the people that we need quicker so we can get a resolution.

Over the years, it's really gotten a lot better. The patches come out a lot more frequently now. It supports the technologies we need. HPE is currently working with us to expand the support in an area that it doesn't currently have. I guess I wouldn't go any higher than that because it's been a long time coming for it to get to that point.

- Built in object repository and storing elements.

- Less coding experience.

- Reporting dashboards.

- Supports desktop, web and mobile product automation.

- Continuous integration is possible with QC and Jenkins.

- Good customer support.

- Various formats of reporting support should be possible.

Right now UFT supports exporting reports in either HTML or PDF in short or detailed format. If exporting reports could be extended to Excel, csv, XML, XSLT, mht formats that would be greatly appreciated.

- They should improve performance and consistency during execution.

There will be performance degradation on the test environment due to long continuous executions of automation scripts which leads to inconsistency of results, a better way to resolve this problem should be addressed at some point.

It helps us consolidate our efforts. All of our projects are in there. We are also in the life science domain so we have many more compliance requirements which we have to adhere to. It has helped us automate our testing. We have also integrated it with our other tools such as JIRA and TFS. It's pretty good so far.

We look at service packs, what bugs they have and fixes. We just want to keep pace with where the industry is going, where the shift is in terms of quality assurance and requirement management. HP is very strong on the testing side, but in the last few years with the agile methodology it has lagged behind. It's slowly catching up and eventually it will get there, but we love the eco-system we're in and will continue to move forward.

It's stable

It's very scalable, a very robust kind of solution and we recommend it to anyone who's looking for a testing automation kind of tool.

We use an HPE partner for our support needs, but tickets do go to HPE eventually, level two, level three. We have never had an issue.

It's very straightforward.

UFT is a very mature product, but again, changes. This is a highly fast-paced, fast rolling field, and you have to keep up the pace with them. There are a lot of open source testers, and they do the job. UFT is a very capable tool compared to Selenium or other test tools available on the market. It can do the job is it cost effective? Investment is definitely on the higher side initially in terms of licensing cost.

UFT provides us with solid automation for our test cases.

Its ease of use means we've been able to ramp up non-technical users and have them understand how to do general debugging very easily.

Tighter integration between ALM and UFT, especially from a reporting perspective, for automation reporting. There's good integration in my opinion, but it just needs to be a little more rock solid.

We've been using it for around three and a half years.

For the most part UFT has been pretty good. Getting it to interact with ALM nicely has been a challenge for us sometimes.

It's been able to scale to our needs.

Good, sometimes a little slow, but overall pretty good.

We didn't have any other solution in place, and needed to have a much better solution than doing testing with Excel files.

It's straightforward.

HPE was one of the very few vendors that we actually had on the list. We went with HPE because my boss actually was very familiar with the product, and felt it fits our organizations needs extremely well.

Give it a shot, if you take the time to invest in it, it works.

The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP). Also the feature for automating both Windows and web applications form a single console is not bad.

My previous organization used UFT extensively for automation more than 500 complex end to end regression tests with considerable savings in time and effort. We were able to achieve that with high degree of reusability.

The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script. Also, the dependency of browser windows to be opened on screen in order for the tool to recognize objects is a big deal breaker since most organizations mandate screen locking when leaving the systems unattended. If we can’t leave a test to run attended, the point of automation in itself becomes a question-mark.

I've been using it for more than 10 years.

There were no issues with the deployment.

We did have a few instances of browser crashing as well as the product crashing. While the product crashing was resolved with 4 GB of memory, the issue with browser crashing still happened with IE 11 and 12 browsers and no resolution was found.

UFT is pretty late to support latest versions of IE. Also I have seen a marked decrease in execution speed while the scripts grow.

I have not interacted directly with HP on the product support.

UFT setup is pretty straightforward.

We did it in-house.

It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly.

No other options were looked as we went straight ahead into UFT.

Go for the cheaper option of Selenium if your requirement is purely browser based testing. If not, go for UFT.

It allows me to perform all in one place--

• Regression tests (tests which check that the existing functionality of an application still works as it should after other parts of the application have been modified),
• Functional tests (to verify a specific action or function of code), and
• Service testing (automated testing protocol)

I was able to reduce regression and functional test times by 80%.

It could be improved with greater browser compatibility and more frequent updates.

Also, running a simple test is straightforward, but creating a framework that can be reused across other tests is complex and time consuming.

I've used it for three to four years.

I didn't encounter any issues with deployment.

When debugging code in UFT, it would crash, freeze and hang a lot.

We had no issues with scalability.

6/10

8/10

We previously used Selenium Webdriver.

We implemented it with our in-house team.

HP UFT cost a lot and there are other free tools that can do the same and much more.

I joined the company after the decision was made to use HP UFT.

If cost is not an issue, then UFT can be considered. There are other tools on the market that can do the same for less.

For us, object recording is the most valuable and most used feature.

We've used it just during a Proof of Concept period.

We noticed during our PoC that it needs parallel execution, not execution via ALM.

I used 11.5 two years ago, and I just updated to 12.51 one month ago, but I have not really used it yet.

There were no issues with the deployment.

There were no issues with the stability.

There were no issues with the scalability.

We previously used Selenium. Our clients choose their IDEs and I integrate for them.

It's hard to install the license seat because the web-based GUI is not user friendly.

I implement it with in-house teams.

The add-on I am using has limited resource on-line that makes it a challenge to use. Compared to Selenium, I prefer Selenium. However, I may want to see HPMC before I can make better suggestions.

We have multiple SAP systems and clients. UFT allows us to use one set of tests for all systems.

We are a worldwide organization with a complex financial authorization matrix. When changes were made to this matrix, we provided automated test scripts. More than 20,000 tests were executed in 1 week.

The current version is sufficient for our purposes at the moment. There were, however, some issues with deployment and the integration into Solution Manager.

We've been using it for three years. Our primary system is SAP and we use UFT through SAP Solution Manager as a third-party testing tool.

Again, we had issues with deployment and the integration into Solution Manager. These are mostly resolved and the current situation is stable.

There were no issues with the stability.

There were no issues with the scalability.

We do not have a direct support contract with HP. Our license is through SAP. Customer support is 10/10 for HP and 8/10 for SAP, but improving.

This is my first involvement with automated testing software.

The initial set up was straightforward once we cleared up some communication issues. The first end-to-end automated test was functional within a week.

We implemented it through a SAP team, but now manage all maintenance and upgrades internally.

The license for this product is provided through our support contract with SAP. Any other product would incur additional license costs.

My only experience is with the product fully integrated with SAP. We are not licensed to use this as a standalone product we must connect to SAP.