OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Reviews

Positive

We create workload models based on requirements, which vary by company. We also create scenarios to simulate real-world environments. 

The main objectives are stress testing, endurance testing, and spike testing, all for performance testing. We monitor the application using tools like LoadRunner or JMeter and provide reports to clients.

For functional testing, we use various checkpoints, like verifying if elements are enabled when we click on a page. These are GUI checkpoints. There are also text recognition, accessibility, and database checkpoints. You can insert these checkpoints into the script and validate them when you run it. 

Selenium has similar functionality, but you have to code it yourself. In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints. 

Another great feature in UFT is synchronization. It ensures that the next line of code executes only after a page is fully loaded. You can do the same in Selenium, but you have to write the code manually.

The tool supports different protocols. It's mostly used for web applications with HTTP and HTTPS. For customized applications, we use SAP GUI or Oracle Forms. We also use APIs to put load on the system and get the load using the API. The specific API depends on the customized application or ERP system being used.

The integration of UFT Developer with our existing ID enhances testing productivity. We get user IDs for both functional and performance testing. 

For functional testing, we get one user ID to work in the test environment. 

For performance testing, we get multiple user IDs to generate the load. We can't use a single user ID to simulate multiple users. Functional and performance testing are two different concepts with different approaches.

There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad. NeoLoad is a strong competitor to LoadRunner and it's very fast. It saves a lot of time when creating scripts, generating load, and creating reports.

OpenText UFT Developer takes a bit more time compared to other tools. JMeter, for example, also does performance testing, but it takes much longer to create scripts, record, correlate, and prepare. LoadRunner is better than JMeter, but NeoLoad saves a lot of time for the consultant, and time is money. 

I've been using it for over 12 years, maybe even closer to 15.

It’s very stable. The team can be structured in a way that one expert person can train ten people easily, and these ten people can become experts within six months to a year. The knowledge can be easily transitioned. 

On the other hand, Selenium is not that easy to transition because it requires more basic knowledge and prerequisites. UFT doesn’t have many prerequisites. Even a business analyst can use UFT.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. I can perform very well in UFT because I have been using it since version six, which was a long time ago, like 12 or 15 years. At that time, it was just developing. Now it has improved a lot. There are a lot of other automation tools now, but when UFT was called QTP, not many automation tools were available. The competition has improved a lot since then. There are a lot of new features and new things. There were some bugs before, but those have all been rectified.

Our customers are mostly enterprise businesses, big companies because everything is kind of structured. They like to have the latest so that they can implement it.

Nowadays, Selenium is also being used by bigger companies, but on the company level, most of the time, they use Selenium because they want to cut costs.

The customer service and support are good. 

Positive

I have used Selenium. To work with Selenium, you need some programming language knowledge, but with UFT, even someone with little scripting knowledge can use it. Selenium requires a bit more skill from the consultant. UFT can be used by anyone with a little training.

Selenium is free, and there's a developer community where you can post questions and get answers. There's no direct support or training, but you can get help from the community. You need some programming knowledge to use Selenium, it's a bit complex. With UFT, you get support from OpenText. If you have issues, you can contact their support group for help. It makes things for users and consultants. 

Every two or three months, Selenium implement new things. So, if you have been working on Selenium continuously for three or four years, then you can catch up. But otherwise, once you are not using it for two to three months, there are so many things because they are improving too. But you have to be in the same facility in Developer. But with UFT even if you have missed it, it’s very easy to find out what the developments are in UFT.

The initial setup is very easy. UFT is simple to set up. If you compare it to Selenium, Selenium requires a bit more experience and research. You need to install Java and understand how to open text files. 

Selenium also has different frameworks, which makes it a bit more complex than UFT. UFT is a customized application that's easy to implement. Selenium needs some experience; it's difficult for a beginner. Someone can be trained on UFT in three to four months, while Selenium takes one to two years to become familiar with.

Nowadays, it is in the cloud. It used to be on-premises, but everything is moving to the cloud. However, some companies still have a fixed cloud or on-premise setup. It can be used for both: on cloud or on premise.

There are two ways to implement UFT, depending on the kind of licenses you need. If you use a site license, it’s directly implemented for the person using UFT. It can be installed directly onto their laptop or workstation.

If you use a floating license, a separate server needs to be installed. UFT will be installed on the server, and the license key will also be installed there. Different users will install UFT on their machines but will connect to the server to check if the license is available. It’s typically a one or two-day task and is not very difficult.

It's a high-priced solution compared to Selenium. Selenium is free, though there is a paid version now too. Selenium has improved a lot, and it's still okay to use. It's a functional testing tool, just like UFT. 

OpenText UFT Developer is a per-user license cost, and there are two types: floating and seat licenses. 

• A seat license is dedicated to one person. 
• A floating license can be used by multiple people. For example, if a company has five floating licenses, five people can use UFT at the same time. The license can be moved from one person to another. 

Cost-wise, I think it's around $8,000 to $10,000 per user license, depending on the discount. It's not per month, it's per user license.

Some companies prefer using free tools like JMeter to save on licensing costs, but they often don't realize that while the tool is free, consultants end up spending much more time using it, which also increases costs. The choice of tool is critical, and it’s important to have someone experienced who can advise which tool is best for the company.

For example, upper management needs to consider why they should invest in a tool like LoadRunner or NeoLoad, even though there are licensing costs. These tools cost money, but consultants can work faster and produce high-quality reports. This ultimately saves time and money in the long run. So, these factors should be carefully evaluated when selecting the right tool for a company.

OpenText UFT Developer tool is a very good tool, but there’s another automation tool that is a very good competitor of UFT, which is Tricentis Tosca. Tosca is a test automation solution that is also very good. 

UFT is very good too. Some companies want to have all their tools from one company, like functional, network, and performance testing tools. If that is the case, then OpenText can be used for ALM, functional, and performance testing with LoadRunner and StormRunner. Similarly, Tosca is for functional testing, and NeoLoad is for performance testing and improvement. Both are good.

AI has recently been implemented there. That is also improved. Using AI in UFT is more advanced now. Automation is very easy. But we need to use some basic best practices for UFT. That is not hard. UFT also provides tutorials. If someone uses the tutorials multiple times, the UFT practices help, but not completely. 

A complete framework needs to be designed by an experienced UFT Developer. With the help of a specialist, it can be exact. Best practices should be used for the tools. For UFT, as opposed to Selenium, all UFT tasks are easier.

Overall, I would rate the product a nine out of ten. 

For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing.

I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, and they are providing cross-browser testing and API support.

We have a web application from our end, so cross-browser testing capability is necessary to qualify our web application in different browsers, which is very useful for me.

The parallel test feature is important, and it is available.

They support mobile testing as well. We had to do integration testing, and we are now looking into Katalon Studio for our automation for potential areas of improvement.

We have UI controls in Infragistics logic that have been identified by OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, but those controls are not supported by TestComplete, which is what I find most valuable.

I use AI-driven test automation features, and they provide AI-driven test automation support as well.

Jira integration is provided extensively along with everything they have.

For our specific project, we don't have any support for some of the UI controls, so we moved to OpenText Functional Testing for Developers from TestComplete.

As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation.

Micro Focus can provide more automation capabilities for OpenText Functional Testing for Developers.

I have been working with OpenText Functional Testing for Developers for around three years.

The setup process for OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is simple. It's a single installer that asks which components need to be included when you install, and you can simply select those, and the installation will be done in a few minutes.

I would give a seven out of ten for stability.

I would give six for scalability because TestComplete is lightweight, but unlike that, OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is heavyweight and consumes almost half of the system memory whenever it is up and running, frequently making the system hang. However, on the functionality side, OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is providing much better features than TestComplete.

For technical support, I would give them an eight because whenever we have a concern, they immediately reach out to us.

Positive

I worked with TestComplete three years ago. For our specific project, we didn't have support for some UI controls, so we moved to OpenText Functional Testing for Developers from TestComplete.

The setup process for OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is simple. It's a single installer that asks which components need to be included when you install, and you can simply select those, and the installation will be done in a few minutes.

They support mobile testing as well. We had to do integration testing, and we are now looking into Katalon Studio for our automation for potential areas of improvement.

We are not currently using the parallel test feature, but that feature is available with OpenText Functional Testing for Developers.

Both on-premises and cloud-based deployments are supported, but ours is on-premises.

I rate OpenText Functional Testing for Developers eight out of ten.

Our use case involves functionality for a system ERP. We work with Deviation, which is stable and receives positive feedback from users.

OpenText UFT Developer allows junior testers to learn through open source and online resources like YouTube. They can find solutions to issues even if the solution does not work with them initially.

OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording.

The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites. It is also suggested that the design and some functionality could be better.

I have been using OpenText UFT Developer for two years as a typical user.

The stability depends on the complexity of the tests. More complicated tests result in less stability because the solution can confuse data or functionality.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten.

I would rate the quality of technical support from OpenText an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup was easy. However, one needs to learn the technology. That said, it is not complicated and can be worked with.

I evaluated Tricentis Tosca before choosing OpenText UFT Developer.

The recommendation of OpenText UFT Developer depends on your system or system under test. If you have a website system, there might be better testing tools than OpenText UFT Developer. It depends on what you want to test.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten.

We've used it across various technologies, including automation for web applications and SAP, as HP partnered with SAP for that integration. We've tried it on all platforms.

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy.  Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars.

It was called Micro Focus UFT, the former Unified Functional Testing tool. Now, it is OpenText UFT Developer. So, I have been using it for a couple of years.

It is pretty stable. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. There are around 50 users in my organisation. 

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. There is room for improvement.

There is room for improvement in support, especially in response time. 

Neutral

I used QTP. Then, QTP became part of OpenText after the Micro Focus acquisition.

I started with Oracle tools, then Windows tools, and finally HP's UFT. All my 25 years have been in test automation.

The initial setup is easy. 

The pricing is competitive. It is affordable and average. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

When I had challenges with scheduler and calendar control recognition challenges, I faced unresponsiveness. OpenText support (previously Micro Focus) and even SmartBear (OpenText Complete provider) just said , "The current version does not support it." They did not give me a roadmap.

The challenge with big companies is that "it is what it is" and don't address customer problems directly.

Wherever, Eggplant was a niche player, stepped in and readily demonstrated its support capabilities to solve my issue.

We use Micro Focus UFT Developer to perform functional testing on both a desktop application and a web application.

One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library.

They have LeanFT Library. This is the reason we choose this tool, we can It's because it can combine and integrate with any unit. 

In my opinion, the price is too high. It could be improved.

The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. 

This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment.

I have been working with Micro Focus UFT Developer for ten years.

The tool, which was formerly called QTP and then later Linearity, had only one version. I have acquired experience in working with all the earlier versions of the tool as well as the current version of Micro Focus UFT Developer. 

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten.

it's a scalable solution,  I would rate it a nine out of ten.

In our organization, we have ten concurrent users who are developers.

I would rate technical support a six out of ten.

This is due to the knowledge of the support engineers.

Previously, we were working with IBM Rational.

We switched since we ran tests using other tools, such as Microsoft testing developers.

We chose Micro Focus UFT Developer because its object detection worked well with our application. I am referring to the recognition of the WPS object.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the initial setup and subsequent deployment and testing an eight.

The initial setup and deployment are easy.

We have seen a return on investment. 

I would say try to accumulate the percentage I never thought about it, but I would say if we compare it to manual testing the return would be seventy percent.

Pricing is expensive. 

If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten.

I would recommend that you ensure that the tool is supported subject to application recognition.

I would rate Micro Focus UFT Developer an eight out of ten.

I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective.

Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously.

I have been working with the product for three years. 

I rate OpenText UFT Developer an eight out of ten. I recommend it, but you must prepare the environment and infrastructure before applying the tool. You need to scan with user growth in mind. We needed to set up the environment to use it.

Micro Focus UFT Developer's main focus is on your desktop application and web applications. 

The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software.

The price of the solution could improve.

We have been using Micro Focus UFT Developer for approximately 20 years.

Micro Focus UFT Developer is a stable solution.

The scalability of Micro Focus UFT Developer is good.

We have three engineers using the solution in my company.

I have used Micro Focus UFT One previously and it gives you the ability to start to use the AI function to recognize more image-based and OCR items within your mobile testing. Micro Focus UFT Developer solution is more code based than Micro Focus UFT One, it gives you a lot more flexibility to record and playback, but instead of the playback portion, it creates scripts that then you can continue adding to.

The initial setup of Micro Focus UFT Developer is simple. We were able to have someone who had no experience whatsoever install the package with no issues.

The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license.

Our customers are maintaining the solution versus us utilizing it by our engineers. We do not have that exposure to maintaining the solution year over year.

I rate Micro Focus UFT Developer a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution in order to test functionality on other applications. It does have the capability of screengrabbing, recording, test automation, implementation of test cases, et cetera. It's called Unified Functional Test and therefore it does these functional requirements of the application in question.

Let's say that we're going to test yahoo.com and there're changes on the yahoo.com page. You can either hire a whole bunch of people to test every button, every functionality, every menu that exists on yahoo.com, or you can use UFT to record one session and then play it back a thousand times. You can either hire a thousand people or hire one person to record that session. And then you can execute the test case a thousand times. It saves a lot of time and resources for a company, in that sense.

Every single feature on offer is valuable and useful. As long as it's a web-based tool, you can use this to test the application.

The initial setup is very easy.

The solution is very scalable.

The product offers very good stability.

The pricing could be improved. It's a bit high right now. They could make it more reasonable.

Currently, the functionalities do not exist on Ranorex or UFT, however, as the industry continues to evolve and put more applications into a mobile device, the implementation of testing in a mobile device, using either Ranorex or UFT or XYZ, et cetera is just a natural progression of their functionality. This world is not made of only PCs. The solution needs to offer mobile application testing.

That said, that is a very difficult requirement as one would expect that they would need to test across various platforms - including iOS, Android, Chrome, et cetera. Every mobile device seems to have its own standard. The mobile industry would need to also standardize a bit. However, that's not likely. There also hasn't been a unification of testing on mobile devices regardless of the browser.  

It requires a good discipline maturity and if the discipline is not there, I spend my time holding people's hands and showing them how to install everything, how to connect, et cetera. Without users with knowledge, users that understand coding, it's very hard to adopt the application.

I've been using the solution for over a decade. It's been 12 years or so at this point. We've used it for a while.

The solution has been very stable. We just finished migrating the last group that was using 12.53 to 15. It's just very, very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

It is scalable with a minor effort from my end. What we do is provide the binaries. We provide a Wiki page for users to reference, and they can go get it themselves and follow the instructions. I can support one person or I can support a hundred people with the same amount of effort.

The majority of my users are testers and or test automators. I can't disclose how many users are using the application, however, definitely, it's in the range of more than ten and less than a hundred.

Technical support is average. We are tier three support for our organization. If we cannot resolve a problem, then we lean on the technical support at Micro Focus. They have their own tiers. Most of the time when we ask for support, we get to their tier one support, and then they can't resolve that, they go to tier two, tier three, all the way to R&D. They have their own process, and we have our own process, however, for the most part, it's difficult to get a straight answer. That said, we have grown to have a good rapport with them so that they do not reference "Did you read the manual? Go to page number..." They now understand that when we call we have exhausted all our references and we need their help. It's a bit better than average at this point. We're mostly satisfied with the support on offer.

I did not previously use a different solution. This is a new tool for me, and I have been supporting it for the last seven years.

The setup is not complex at all. It's one of the easiest applications that I support. You get the binaries, double click as an administrator, and it deploys. The challenge is once it's installed on your machine, then you need to understand that you need to connect to ALM. You need to connect to the cloud server where your scripts are installed. You could use it as a stand-alone, however, for the most part, on an enterprise organization it's best to have a library of test cases that is on the application. In this case, with ALM, you can check out the ticket, check out the test case, execute it, and re-put it into the system for someone else to use.

the deployment is very fast. it only takes about ten minutes to install.

One of the challenges in large organizations is that on a user's laptop or machines, they may or may not have administrative access. You can install anything that you'd upload from the internet. Some organizations prevent that, so some users may need admin rights. If a user installs it without administration access, the application, UFT in this case, does not install all the components necessary for it to work properly.

The maintenance is all in the server, in the ALM server, the client. The maintenance you require for VCO is not very much, however, if VCO relies on a database of some sort, that you connect VCO to a server to get diagrams and they upload, that server requires maintenance, patches, an operating system, and re-indexing of the large components. That said, in terms of UFT, it's a fairly standalone application that requires almost no maintenance.

The return on investment for an organization is that the more people use it, the cost per capita reduces. If we buy these two for one person it's a very, very expensive solution. However, if we buy this product for 10 people, then now the return on investment is higher because we have more test automation, more testing, more analysis, more defects are found on different products, et cetera. You should never buy this product or any product only for a select group. It needs to be used by more people in order to benefit from a return on investment.

The pricing of the solution is high. It's more than $10,000 per floating license. That's a yearly cost.

There are no additional costs on top of that, however.

We are just customers and end-users.

This is a client-based application.

I'd advise other companies considering the solution to ensure that your organization is mature in the software development life cycle and that the organization has documentation, videos, and knowledge of where the testers can go for that information. It shouldn't be a repeat of a user's manual or a link to their documentation. They need to translate and synthesize the documentation into very bulleted items. 

If I have a user manual that is composed of five pages, I translate all that into three bullet items. The testers do not have time to go and read five pages. First of all, find out where the information is then find five pages of the manual. They might rather go to my tool aides and go bullet item, bullet item, bullet item, and done. Support group needs to put themselves in the shoes of the tester and synthesize the information into succinct and quick tool aides. While it would be easier for me to just put a link to a user manual, which is about a 2,000-page document, no one is going to go through it. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten as it requires a junior or senior tester that has done test automation before. You can't take a guide that likes to make diagrams and create test cases. It needs to be the lines of code. You need people who know the programming language. If you don't have that background, it is a very complicated tool for first-time users.

We have many data centers, and the infrastructure for these is moving to the Amazon cloud. They are working towards a total transformation. We have a lot of mobile applications. Some of these are Java-based, but a number of them are Angular and Ionic-based. Here, our usage is as a simple record and playback utility. We perform unit testing as a one-off operation, and once we complete development tasks, we do the unit testing. Our developers only have two machines, one for .NET and one for Java. There is no commitment to buy these tools by their licensed permit.

We haven't got the full suite. We had only UFT regular 14.53. They have now the UFT Developer. This is for the developers to perform unit testing. It improves our testing processes.

Our developers only use it for record and play. They use Java but don't need to understand much programming knowledge, so this helps. They don't check the end-to-end flow or regression, which is really only required when we have a new build, so it makes the job easier. It is also both mobile and Windows-based. The app development team has recommended the UFT Developer version, as this is cheaper. All our tests are run unattended, automated, and they run on remote servers. The Java and .NET programmers have said that "This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."

With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine. Whereas with Selenium, you can have five instances of the test on a single machine. The lack of multiple instance capability is not as useful.

We have been using UFT for a decade or more. This is my 8th year in the Information Technology services wing. Previously, I was working on the application development regression team. I am now in the newly formed digital enterprise transformation team. It is mostly cloud-based.

It is a stable product for our usage, which is mainly recorded and play actions. We also do functional testing via our automation team. They are not developers but know UFT well. We also use it for end-to-end testing. Any instability is detected via these internal processes. Although we do not test the entire regression suite, we use it for thorough testing of all our processes, as we have several long test iterations.

I didn't find them to be exceptionally good. They are very slow, and for every problem, they want you to raise a ticket. Very often, they are not available or open. We often have to close tickets due to a lack of a timely response.

UFT setup is absolutely straightforward. Out of the box, they provide a DVD, and then you extract an executable file, and this performs the full installation process. All you need then is a valid license to use the software.

It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items.

I would rate the UFT product 8 out of 10. It's cheaper, but they also have an enterprise license. If you take it, you get the license for both. However, we don't use both.