OpenText UFT One Reviews

What is most valuable?

How has it helped my organization?

What needs improvement?

For how long have I used the solution?

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

May 2025

Free Report: OpenText UFT One Reviews and More

Learn what your peers think about OpenText UFT One. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: May 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

How are customer service and support?

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

How was the initial setup?

What about the implementation team?

What other advice do I have?

What is most valuable?

How has it helped my organization?

What needs improvement?

For how long have I used the solution?

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

How are customer service and technical support?

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

How was the initial setup?

What about the implementation team?

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

What other advice do I have?

Before we start start, let's clear up any confusion new users may have: HP's Unified Functional Tester 12.50 (UFT) is the latest version of the QuickTest Professional (QTP) formerly from Mercury Interactive. They are essentially the same product, in the same way Word 2007 and Word 2013 are the same. There are a few new features, and all the stuff you know and love is still in there. It's just that, for long time users such as myself, someone has tidied up a bit, and I can't find anything. At the end, I will discuss a few things about HP's latest product, LeanFT. Also note that I am organizing these features starting with what beginners can handle, and then what they can leverage as their skills advance.

The features that are most valuable in UFT include the built in Excel data table, the Automatic Object Identification and the Record and Playback feature. That said, I will ask advanced automation engineers to bear with me, as that last answer will have raised huge red flag.

The Excel data tables are visible from the main interface for easy access. UFT can easily load external Excel worksheets to replace any that you have displayed. So if you want to edit them in Excel instead that's perfectly fine. Advanced users can have several test cases in individual Excel files, or as multiple worksheets in a single file. Aside from all the features Excel provides, it also allows design of data-driven tests, keyword-driven tests, and hybrids.

If you ever wonder why UFT licenses are just so darn expensive, it's because the developers bent over backwards to provide the "Kitchen Sink" of object recognition. By default UFT records and stores all objects in its Object Repository. It has at least 15 different add-ins to support multiple technologies, including .Net, Java and even Terminal Emulators. It automatically uses a minimal combination of unique object properties to do this. And in the case where no unique properties can be used, the object index is used as a last resort. However advanced users can also build objects on the fly in code, either with Descriptive Programming or a Descriptive Object. All three approaches support CSS, xPath and Regular Expressions, so that you can reduce maintenance if portions of the object property value changes regularly. There is even a feature to identify objects by image called Insight, and another to create hotspot virtual objects. While these last two are not as reliable as Descriptive Programming, they are there as your options of last resort.

Next, to clarify: Record and Playback should never be the primary way to create automated test scripts. The code is not optimized, and will often be so brittle that it will often take a few attempts to create a script that can simply be executed repeatedly. This can cause new users to inadvertently trash the product online from sheer frustration. Consider this: If you had only a hammer as a tool, would tell the internet it sucks because it's only good for building birdhouses and doghouses, but not suited for completing residential buildings? I should hope not. The best way to look at Record and Playback is as a tool with a few specific purposes: First if you are unfamiliar with the VBScript language syntax, it builds code automatically for you to inspect and learn. Second it comes in handy when first building objects with descriptive programming. It allows you to quickly inspect how UFT would choose to identify an object, if your initial attempts are failing. Lastly it is a good way to quickly create a Proof of Concept, showing that, yes, the tool understands your particular web application.

The best example of improvement within the organization is a closer working relationship with my fellow manual testers. While project managers would like have me automate 100% of everything, and secretly kick their manual testers to the curb, it's simply not possible. To avoid the natural animosity this idea can promote, I work with a manual tester on each regression release. Essentially I work down through a list of the tests I have automated, and they work up executing the remaining manual tests. We both end up in the middle, finishing a job much sooner than expected. We both feel we are an essential part of the team, and we don't feel overwhelmed by the amount of work we are expected to perform.

It also puts us on more even playing field with our Developers. Most of them think I am still just a blackbox manual tester with a tool they view as nothing more than a toy. On several occasions Developers have stated that the defects I have uncovered are caused by the tool itself. I have had accusations that it's my tool that is causing memory leaks, or that it has covertly acquired Local Admin Rights and have changed all manner of random settings. I have found, repeatedly, that I must defend and prove that I don't have the skill, nor the time, to create such fantastical code. After proving two or three items are actually the developer's issues, usually on a system without my tool installed, I generally get some "street cred" with developers. After that point we work together to be more efficient.

Deployment and setup of UFT can't be much simpler.

HP has a policy that software updates for the QTP/UFT products are only available to licensed users with a service agreement. This is fully understandable from a business perspective. However this policy extends beyond version upgrades to software patches, and it backed up by HP's highly paid lawyers. The problem this poses is that any potential customer that downloads the tool for use with a 30-day trial license must work with an unpatched version that is often less stable than the patched version in use by licensed long-term customers. The problem here is that HP wants potential new customers to try their product, but policy prevents them from showcasing that product in the best light, thus shooting themselves financially in the foot. I would sincerely hope HP CEO Meg Whitman, who is a brilliant businesswoman, might have a chance to read this article, recognize the policy flaw, and resolve it for the betterment of her company's bottom line.

That said I would recommend anyone interested trying the tool for the first time to use the latest release of UFT which is 12.50. If you have an earlier version such as 12.02, even with a patch, I would recommend the upgrade as well. This also gives you access to LeanFT at no additional cost which we will discuss shortly.

I would like to see the "double clicking a function in the keyword list takes me to the function source code" changed back to "double click a function keyword takes me to the function reference". I would like to see the person who thought that would be a grand idea removed, to prevent other such grand ideas from taking root in the product.

Seriously I would like to see a Static Code Analysis component added to the product. For those who are unfamiliar with the advantage this tool provides, it is simply this: It scans all your project code all at once, and gives you a list of where all potential errors exist. Which is significantly better than finding errors one at a time at run-time. Amazingly this professional level tool is available on the internet for just about every known programming language... except VBscript. Google it if you don't believe me.

In fact there is paid Static Code Analysis tool specifically for UFT users called Test Design Studio from a third party at patterson-consulting.net. I highly recommend including a license to compliment the HP IDE.

Get the latest patch for UFT.

Don't use more than two Actions. They only serve to needlessly complicate your project. Functions work just as well without the overhead of additional Excel pages that probably with never get populated. Similarly, if you find yourself struggling with the decision to use a Function or a Sub, make it a Function and forget about it.

Don't let the tool organize the folder structure of your project. It's buried pretty deep by default. It's easier if you have a project folder off the root of a drive that contains the folders: Tests, Functions, Environment, Results and Documentation.

Learn what Regular Expressions are and how to use them for simple pattern matching. Don't be put off by their complexity, a basic understanding goes a long way in this field. Much the way a little salt will make a bland soup better, but too much ruins it.

There is a lot of flexibility and functionality in UFT. You can store data in many different places. It does not mean you should try to utilize every one of them. Anyone who has worked with Photoshop, as an example, knows there are a hundred imaging functions, but at most six are all you need to be proficient at it. The same goes for storing data with HFT.

If you can't get the tool to recognize an object on the first day, go make friends with the developer. Show them the list of Add-In support UFT provides and ask them to point out which ones they are using in the environment. Then save them at the last second from being hit by a bus. Some day down the road you will have to call in that favor.

Roll your own results reporter. My results go out to another Excel file with links to screen captures.

LeanFT is a hybrid solution for those who are looking to take advantage of Selenium. You might think one of those advantages might be speed. Because the most commonly used language of Selenium is Java, there is no doubt that it has speed over UFT's VBscript. However, this has about as much meaning in the automation field as noting that a rocket-equipped Jaguar will out-pace a Bugatti on an open stretch of desert road. Bring them into the reality of city driving with streetlights, hairpin curves and pedestrians and speed makes it more likely both car and animal will crash into a building.

The major weakness with Selenium that LeanFT addresses is it's identification of objects. The problem here is that much of the object identification available to Selenium users is hard to decipher, and difficult to maintain, particularly with xPath. Take this example:

//a[contains(text(),'Eggs')], //div[@id='shortcuts']/span/span[2]/a/span

SPAN. SPAN[2]. A. SPAN? This is this an index to an unknown level of HTML code and impossible to maintain when it changes.

LeanFT brings to Selenium many of the object identification techniques noted above that QTP/UFT engineers how been comfortable with for years without being forced to learn the complexities of xPath. This is important to me as I can now port my own custom object recognition technique from UFT directly into Selenium. In addition reporting results can be sent back to HP ALM (formerly Quality Center). LeanFT also has access to other common frameworks like TESTNG and JUNIT, as well as source control tools such as GIT and SVN.

I personally have a relationship with contacts inside HP. Years ago I made the decision to be a Track Speaker at a Mercury World conference in Orlando (which is now HP Discover in Las Vegas and London). My decision was a financial one, I simply could not afford the airfare, the hotel and the ticket into the conference. But I learned that, if accepted, I could at least attend the conference for free. I did this to meet others like myself face to face and maybe get on the inside track. I found ten other people who knew more about this tool than I do, and I am friends with nine of them. At that initial conference I was fortunate enough to sit in on a discussion group about the future of the product. At the end they asked for volunteers for the Beta program and I made sure they had my number.

What is most valuable?

How has it helped my organization?

What needs improvement?

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

How are customer service and technical support?

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

How was the initial setup?

What other advice do I have?

What is most valuable?

How has it helped my organization?

What needs improvement?

For how long have I used the solution?

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

How are customer service and technical support?

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

How was the initial setup?

What about the implementation team?

What other advice do I have?

QTP has ruled the automation tool market in the last decade. There is absolutely no doubt on this. If you have any doubt on this, (I know we are testers, doubting is in our blood. After all, we dont trust developers code as well) gather around 100 manual or automation folks and ask them how many of them have heard about QTP and take the count of who all have raised their hands ( Count it properly, some lazy folks would only raise their hand partially, fearing as if they will be hanged if they raise their hands completely). Now, ask them how many of them have heard about other tools like Watir, Squish, TestComplete, TestPartner, AutomatedQA, AutoIt, MAUI(Shhhhh… This is Microsoft Proprietory tool),Fitnesse, Cucumber, etc. The verdict is out there. QTP has been the King (or queen or Mount Everest or giant or whatever you call it) in the last decade.

I started my career with automation tool development and still continue to do so. Few years back I was bitten by QTP. Started with 9.2, then 9.5 (First from HP, after it acquired Mercury Interactive Systems), 10.0, 11.0 etc. Though there are several bugs in QTP but HP folks have always managed to release a patch in a jiffy. The problem with QTP is that it is ridiculously over priced per seat license. Quite a tough proposition in this cost conscious world.

Here comes Selenium. No other tool has (ever, ever, ever) came closer to QTP than Selenium. Nowadays, there are many folks discussing about Selenium in various forums/ discussion board. What makes Selenium so much in demand? Selenium (Symbol Se) is a chemical substance having an atomic number 34 in the periodic table (If you dont know what is a periodic table, then probably you were not paying attention in your chemistry subject in school) which is used to treat the poison of another chemical substance called Mercury. (Now, you know why the Thoughtworks guys named it Selenium) Btw, ThoughtWorks is one of the best firm. If you are working there, time to pat your back and shout with all your lung power “I am with the best”.

Selenium is free (I still wonder how this folks make money). Selenium is a free addon in firefox. Coding is done in Java language (Trust me Java is a damn powerful language). Gets integrated with other tools like FitNesse.Most developers nowadays use Java as their preferred programming language. Selenium has an edge here.

Having said that UFT 11.5 Rocks !!! I was fortunate to have attended a meeting on UFT 11.5 by HP QTP Development Lead. I was blown away by UFT. A totally revamped product.

Only time will tell, if Selenium can stand up to its name and treat the poison of Mercury.

I have seen many articles which compare Selenium (1 or 2) with QTP (or other commercial tools). But these articles miss very basic point that Selenium is a library available in variety of language while QTP has entire gamut of tools with it. So if you were to really compare QTP with Selenium then comparison should be based on the library of languages which is offered either of these tools, which in my opinion Selenium wins outright over QTP.
My only intention of writing this post is not claim Selenium victory of QTP but to demonstrate how badly Selenium is compared with QTP at times. There might be things QTP would be good at doing (I left QTP long ago hence can not name any) but to disregard Selenium on the factors I listed herein is highly biased.

• Object spying - Sure, you have QTP recorder which does it for you but don't forget that you can test object locator using Selenium IDE and it is not limited to using only Selenium IDE. Firebug with Firefox can be used for same while Chrome has built in development tool bar to test element locator. In case you don't know you can use $$("cssLocator") to test css locator and $x("xpathLocator") to test xPath in both FF and chrome to test application objects. Can you use QTP to test object locators in FF and Chrome?

• Debugging code - So QTP comes in with built-in editor and Selenium is defeated in this aspect. Is it? Given the variety of languages Selenium can be used with, you have far greater language editor options with Selenium than with QTP. You have umpteen options with editors like Intellij, Eclipse, Visual Studio than the one available with QTP. When I was working with QTP I could not even conveniently rename test methods spanning across multiple files. Such re factoring is child's play with professional editors you use with Selenium

• Recovery Scenarios - This is one of the biggest cheat point of QTP. Add recovery scenarios and tool takes care of working around the update windows. First of all if you add recovery scenario then it slows down the speed of test execution as there would be one listener always looking for such events, which means more recovery scenario and be ready for more slower test execution. Why should you bother about those automatic update windows in your test environment? Should not you proof your test environment against such update windows? If it is windows or FF then disable automatic updates. And best if you can not manage your test environment then out source it to some else like - Sauce Labs or Testing Bot

• Testing non browser applications - Well, when did Selenium claim that it can tests window based applications. Selenium is browser automation framework. Comparing Selenium and QTP on this front is like comparing apples with oranges.

• Great object Repository of QTP - So QTP can store objects in an external location, all you need to do is to update object repo when your object location changes. And then you find that the easiest way to port QTP scripts from one machine to another is to use Descriptive Programming which indeed means that you should do away with your beloved object repository of QTP. Now coming to absence of object repository mechanism in Selenium. Have you heard of properties files or Page Factory and guess what, you you don't have to do away with any thing to be able to port your Selenium tests from one machine to another.

• No built-in Report with Selenium - QTP generates nice test reports and with Selenium - none. Really? When you pick up a language for Selenium you would be using a framework in that language and most probably the framework will provide you the reporting capabilities. For example there is ant task to generate test report in JUnit while TestNG has buit-in reporting mechanism. Google it and you would find similar options in language of your choice.

• QTP and QC integration- You bought QTP for test automation now buy QC for test management. What with Selenium Test Management tools. None. There are indeed options - xStudio is one good option for small Selenium teams looking for test management with out spending any extra money. And their commercial options are cheaper than QC. If you are looking to port your test results to Test Management tool then TestLink might be worth a try. In this case you don't have to pay at all.

I decided to use Selenium because I like the freedom that you get with all the programming languages it supports and because development is usually quicker than any other testing tools I ever used!

I chose Selenium IDE as my first open source automated tool. And then I worked with Selenium RC. And now Selenium Webdriver. It's the best testing tool ever!!

To see a list of hotfixes that I know of see:

http://www.sayem.org/2012/02/qtp-sucks-selenium-rules.html