Coming October 25: PeerSpot Awards will be announced! Learn more
Julia Frohwein - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director of Delivery at PeerSpot (formerly IT Central Station)
  • 0
  • 132

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One.

What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?

PeerSpot user
17 Answers
SwathyBhavani - PeerSpot reviewer
Delivery manager at Tata Consultancy
Real User
Top 20
04 August 22

I believe there are a few problem statements, but the one that comes to mind first is that execution on SAP systems is time-consuming. It takes time. We spend a lot of time executing the scripts. For us, for example, the execution is time-consuming, in SAP, I have a regression suite for SAP, it would be close to 300 business scenarios, where every scenario, will have a minimum of 20 to 30 pieces. I'm referring to a business scenario, not a test scenario or a test suit. I would have 300 business scenarios, but I just want to click a button and have it execute in an external common feed result. That kind of comfort that I have never felt here. Every script we have to run, as well as any manual intervention. Someone has to be present. We have a lot of challenges ahead of us. The second issue is test data management, which is a little cumbersome for this tool, and the third is that Microsoft only works with certain SAP modules. It performs well, but it doesn't work as well on the web GUI as it does on Tosca, Selenium HQ, or Worksoft. Micro Focus, in my opinion, lacks more SAP versions. Another issue is anywhere SAP has this overnight batch scripting that needs to stay where I have to run certain parts of the script for today, then wait until tomorrow for the batch jobs to run, and then execute the same script from where it left off. Those kinds of scenarios are extremely difficult to replicate in UFT. I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason. Because when we first started 10 years ago, I thought QTP would be the tool for SAP automation, but I no longer believe that. There are so many competitors in the same landscape. They must understand their UFT position in the market and position themselves accordingly. It is relatively easy for people to go to UFT when necessary. Even if the client, prefers Worksoft or Tosca, quick list automation tools. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has done anything differently over the years to keep their market share, or if they even agree on a strategy.

VictorHorescu - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Executive Officer at Iqst
Top 5Leaderboard
26 May 22

The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java.

Madhavi Gudipati - PeerSpot reviewer
QA Architect at PACCAR Inc
Real User
Top 20
17 May 22

Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent.

Senior Staff Software Engineer at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
23 February 22

The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile.

Associate Manager at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
04 February 22

When it comes to pricing Micro Focus is expensive, and it doesn't support test case panel execution. I think that over time, Micro Focus has not really understood the market needs. They are still improvising the UI. They need to really understand how this tool fits into the DevSecOps ecosystem. We have been giving that advice, but they have not taken it into account. I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps.

Test Automation Consultant at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Top 20
21 February 21

There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT. Most of the time, administrative rights are required which necessitate much trouble to integrate it seamlessly. When integrated, it works fine, but to maintain it in CI, special systems and privileges must be utilized. This is challenging for us. In addition, UFT One has a Jenkins plugin that provides us the connection we need to Micro Focus so that we can obtain our UFT test cases. The problem is that the plugin does not come with exception handling, meaning that if we enter the wrong credentials we don’t know why it does not work. This can lead to the Jenkins server crashing. Another issue is that we can't address the UFT output to the Jenkins console. This means that when carrying out our tests in a continuous integration server, we cannot know what the UFT tested, step-by-step. The usability can also be improved. When we receive new versions of UFT, some of the icons are altered so that things are not recognizable to us or to the customer. Another issue is that the application requires slow work. If you go too fast while debugging, the Step Over button may easily change to the Stop button. The Git integration is also a point when it comes to continuous integration. There are aspects that are not recognized by Git. We cannot do a side by side comparison of changes, such as comparing the QSL side and the object repository side. When they updated UFT from version 14 to 15, they changed the data table structure of UFT, such as the first data line turning into the column name. This is a problem as our customers may have different versions of UFT. An example would be if we wish to change the data table of version 15 but a customer has version 14, it can be problematic. This destroys the tests. Another question we have is why everything is in read mode during the execution. With other IDEs, like Visual Studio, you can change the variables while you execute or debug something, and this is not possible in UFT. It's only in read mode, so you can’t play with variables or objects. Also on our list is the fact that UFT allows you to work on 11 or 12 tests. If you want to change something with search and replace, you can only change it in the 11 or 12 tests that are open in the solution. But what if we have a 13th test case that is not included in the solution? We then need to open that test after we have already searched and replaced. That's a little bit inconvenient because other IDEs give you the opportunity to make those changes everywhere, in every script, not only the 11 or 12. We have already addressed some of these issues with technical support, but not all of them have been handled. For example, we brought up the issue of the icons changing with every version some years ago and nothing has happened. It gets worse and worse from version to version. We also have menus and instructions for our customers, but because all the screenshots become outdated with the next version, we have to do maintenance on them all the time. And it’s not because of new functionality. Most of the time, only the icon style and the design is changing and sometimes it’s the positioning that changes and we are not able to reconfigure it. We end up having to do a lot of work without any need for it. The old VBS language can be a nuisance. It could be easier to use and it could be better integrated in continuous integration pipelines. And it could always be faster.

Learn what your peers think about Micro Focus UFT One. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: September 2022.
635,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Kishore Kandula - PeerSpot reviewer
Practice Head - Automation at Tech Mahindra Limited
Real User
Top 10
01 February 21

From a sales pitch perspective, everyone is now looking for scriptless automation, whether they are using the feature or not. So, if UFT One is made as a scriptless tool entirely, that would be very good. UFT also has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts.

Lead Analyst at Tata Consultancy Services
Real User
Top 20
25 January 21

There are a few limitations when it comes to automating desktop-based application testing. You need a medium to run the test cases. We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work. We have other apps which help us to integrate all the tests into a dashboard. So one area for improvement would be to allow us to run that test suite. We would also like to see improvement when it comes to generating reports.

Chris Trimper - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Automaton Architect at Independent Health
Real User
Top 10
20 January 21

The one thing that has been throwing us for a loop is that they have been changing labels, e.g., how marketing people like to flip-flop around five or six terms. So, there has been a lot of maintenance needed for that. So, the cool thing is that if the "Available Balance" label changed to some other term, then I would just have to go into the script and just plunk the new term in there. Because we are using real devices (apps), AI versus traditional automation can't really make it faster, i.e., for a screen to load on a phone is a screen to load on a phone. Unfortunately, I don't know anything that can make that faster. Emulators might, but I am not really sold on emulators. I want to use real devices. For execution, the only thing that we can do is just run it in parallel, e.g., run one test on multiple phones at the same time, as opposed to phone A, then phone B, and then C. For execution, you are stuck. That is one thing with device testing. With browsers, they had headless browsers, and that made things faster. However, I don't really think you will ever have that with mobile. I could theoretically represent the data bits with API testing, but I still want to be testing the app. Unfortunately, at this point, I don't see how it could ever be faster, shy of using parallel execution. I used to say, "I would like to see them do something more with innovation in it," but then they came out with this AI thing. That kind of blew my mind to think that not only is this technology which is available in a tool that most people have written off, because it is not getting the market share that it once had because people just won't give it a chance. I haven't had a chance to tinker with it yet, but I would be intrigued to see its integration with Git. Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact. There are podcasts out there for everything, and they usually tackle a new topic on a weekly basis. It would just be great to have them do something more like that. Where you send in a letter, and someone picks up the letter, then they answer it for the community talking to the people.

Test Solution Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 5
19 October 20

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.

Senior Load Performance Consultant at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
19 October 20

In terms of what could be improved, they need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user and if we're going to spread this throughout the organization, we'll need to spend a whole lot of money. The company can afford it, but we're going to try to promote Selenium as the open source automation tool. All of these automation tools are a tad finicky. They tend to freeze on us once in a while and we get an 85% pass ratio every time we run them, but 15% of the time these tools will fail. And it's not the tool, it's that the browser that they're opening may freeze up when it's time to do something on an application. I haven't looked at Selenium yet. I'm going to get some exposure to it later in the year or next year. But that's the tool that I'm going to focus on and replace QTP with. Because Selenium is free of charge and it's the standard in large corporations these days. As for what should be included in the next release, I don't know much about that because I haven't used QTP in a while. I don't know how much better Selenium is than QTP except for the fact that it's open source. But as far as the features are concerned, I was okay with using QTP back in 2007 when I used it.

IT Business Analyst at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
07 October 20

We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes. In the next release, I would like to be able to see multiple scripts at the same time.

Roberto Forlani - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Test Manager at Allianz
Real User
Top 10
08 September 20

Improvement could be made in the cost of the solution and the support time involved in solving issues. This is something that is quite tricky. I try to get the support on a ticket, but it takes time for it to be managed. This part is always quite tedious and that's in addition to the renewal process for licensing. It's not managed very well by Micro Focus. We're looking into more open source products. I'd like to see a change in the programming language so that the product would support modern programming languages. It would improve agility which I believe the product needs.

Dolf Cornelius - PeerSpot reviewer
Owner at a consultancy with self employed
Real User
05 July 20

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.

Vishwa-Reddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Automation Eng Senior Analyst at Accenture
Real User
30 June 20

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.

Judith Boucher - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Software Test Engineer at Excellus Solutions
Real User
14 January 20

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

Senior Digital Business Consultant at HNRG
17 January 19

In my opinion, the improvement of the object recognition of new technologies and the capacity to catch more performance info should be desirable.

Related Questions
Netanya Carmi - PeerSpot reviewer
Content Manager at PeerSpot (formerly IT Central Station)
Nov 02, 2021
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca? Which is better and why?
See 1 answer
02 November 21
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well suited for CI integrations. We liked it, in particular, because it integrates greatly with other platforms, like .net, QC and Jenkins. An added advantage was the multi-device support. One of the best advantages of MicroFocus is that it integrates with legacy web technologies and even Windows client applications. Finally, MicroFocus supports cross-browser testing. Regardless of many features, including a test combinations generator and insight recording, it is relatively easy to learn. That being said, it doesn’t support multiple formats of reporting. For now, UFT only supports exporting reports in HTML or PDF. MicroFocus should allow exporting to Excel, CSV, XML, and other formats. There is a bit of performance degradation of the test environment when executing automation scripts continuously for a long time. The execution can be inconsistent sometimes, and scripting takes a long time. Another downside is the high licensing price. Tricentis Tosca is an integrated testing solution that includes testing automation and case design approach, risk-based testing, test data management, and service virtualization. The best feature is its versatility in helping both web and desktop applications. It is very reliable and stable. Another great feature is that you can reuse test cases. The platform supports multiple technologies and devices. It is truly end-to-end. Because it is scriptless, anyone can learn to use it. As much as we like it, there are downsides to Tosca, too. The price is one of them. It runs a bit expensive, but it is worth it. The test design section is complicated to learn, and the UI takes time to get used to. Conclusions Tosca is a better solution in terms of usability and versatility. MicroFocus is better for organizations with legacy web applications.
Subhash Pasupuleti - PeerSpot reviewer
Framework Architect and Test Automation Specialist at NJ Judiciary
Dec 01, 2021
I need to choose a product that supports Cross-Browser Testing on Edge, Chrome and IE. Which of these two Micro Focus products (Micro Focus UFT Developer, Micro Focus UFT One) can do this? Thanks!
See 2 answers
PeerSpot user
Founder and CEO with 1-10 employees
11 January 21
Hi Subhash. Both tools can: UFT One - allows you to automate functional and regression testing for the widest range of applications and technologies can supports testing GUI, web, mobile or API applications. UFT Developer - is powerful and lightweight functional automation software for Agile and DevOps teams, built specifically for continuous testing and continuous integration.  It allows you to create tests in your favourite IDEs and to write robust and reusable test automation scripts using JavaScript, Java or C#. Get fast feedback from your test execution with the lightweight but detailed results report. UFT One includes a licence to UFT Developer. If you don't need the additional support in UFT One, the UFT Developer is the tool you need.
Diego Caicedo Lescano - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Innovation Officer at SAGGA
01 December 21
UFT One is the one you need.
Related Articles
Ariel Lindenfeld - PeerSpot reviewer
Director of Content at PeerSpot (formerly IT Central Station)
Aug 21, 2022
We’re launching an annual User’s Choice Award to showcase the most popular B2B enterprise technology products and we want your vote! If there’s a technology solution that’s really impressed you, here’s an opportunity to recognize that. It’s easy: go to the PeerSpot voting site, complete the brief voter registration form, review the list of nominees and vote. Get your colleagues to vote, too! ...
Related Articles
Ariel Lindenfeld - PeerSpot reviewer
Director of Content at PeerSpot (formerly IT Central Station)
Aug 21, 2022
PeerSpot User's Choice Award 2022
We’re launching an annual User’s Choice Award to showcase the most popular B2B enterprise technol...
Download Free Report
Download our free Micro Focus UFT One Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: September 2022.
635,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.