We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Micro Focus UFT One OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Micro Focus UFT One is #2 ranked solution in top Functional Testing Tools, #2 ranked solution in top Mobile App Testing Tools, #2 ranked solution in top Regression Testing Tools, #2 ranked solution in top Test Automation Tools, and #3 ranked solution in top API Testing Tools. IT Central Station users give Micro Focus UFT One an average rating of 8 out of 10. Micro Focus UFT One is most commonly compared to Tricentis Tosca:Micro Focus UFT One vs Tricentis Tosca. Micro Focus UFT One is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 86% of users researching this solution on IT Central Station. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 34% of all views.
What is Micro Focus UFT One?

Micro Focus UFT One simplifies end-to-end functional testing using intelligent test automation and embedded AI-based capabilities to accelerate testing across web, mobile, desktop, mainframe, API, and composite and packaged enterprise-grade apps.

QA and Testing teams can efficiently scale tests across distributed infrastructures and in parallel on web and mobile; script once and replay all tests with cross-browser support; and leverage a broad ecosystem of integrations from version control to continuous integration to agile and DevOps.

With support of 200+ technologies including SAP, Salesforce, Java, Citrix and more, UFT One increases test coverage from the UI to the API—and everything in between—for true multi-platform application testing.

Micro Focus UFT One is also known as Unified Functional Testing, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP).

Micro Focus UFT One was previously known as UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP).

Micro Focus UFT One Buyer's Guide

Download the Micro Focus UFT One Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: November 2021

Micro Focus UFT One Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, and
TMNA Services

Micro Focus UFT One Video

Pricing Advice

What users are saying about Micro Focus UFT One pricing:
  • "The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
  • "The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
  • "Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
  • "The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."

Micro Focus UFT One Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Chris Trimper
Test Automaton Architect at Independent Health
Real User
Top 20
Testers have been able to free up their time: instead of doing mundane, repetitive tasks, they shift them off to automation

Pros and Cons

  • "For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
  • "Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."

What is our primary use case?

We build helper utilities. For example, your particular test is one where when you do the test, you have 30 minutes of setup, but then at the end, you need a real human eye because it is brand new stuff and you don't know what to do. However, if you could have an automation build that 30 minutes worth of stuff and not be worried about it over and over again, thinking about it as your test prerequisite, then we have an awful lot of stuff for that.

The real good stuff is that we have full-blown replacements for manual tasks, whether it would be for desktop applications or hybrid web applications. There are a lot of apps out there, especially in the enterprise space where it is in a web browser, but there is an installer on your computer and the web browser is the view. We have PureWeb, our websites, and others, and we do a lot of mobile testing with UFT One. We do almost all our API testing with it for our web services. We also do a good amount of data testing with it as well.

The use case is really just to add testing efficiencies in any way, shape, or form that we can through a helper for some prerequisites, since we do a lot of data builders with it. In fact, that is a project that I am working on today, building test data where an actual person doesn't have to sit there and build test data because that is boring and unproductive. We have scripts to do full-blown test case replacements. So, any one of our projects or applications can have anywhere between 20 percent and mid-sixties percent automation coverage for the application of automated replacement of manual tests.

It is a development IDE. When you're working with a development IDE, you need to proof it through a bunch of different techniques that you use to make sure that there is no recompiling you need to do. So, we are in the process of getting version 15.0.2, but we are using version 15 across the entire team.

It is all on-premises. So, UFT can encompass a couple of things. There is UFT One, which is like any automation software that you would use. Technically, the most prevalent that people see the marketplace is Sauce Labs working with Eclipse, or something like that. Think of this as is Eclipse (or your favorite IDE) and the automation software all bundled into one. It is only applicable for on a desktop computer of some sorts, whether it is a laptop, desktop, or virtual machine. We use it all on-premises.

Cloud is a little bit iffy for some of the things that we do, being in the healthcare space. We do use some cloud stuff, but for this particular one, I would imagine we use on-prem as long as we can. Now, it is mostly all virtual machines. We have almost no physical desktops left with it because gone are the days of trying to figure out a problem. Because you have templates to base it off of, it's like, "Listen, just rebuild my machine. I'll use it tomorrow."  We are using it on Windows 10 virtual machines.

Our virtual machines are constantly running. It is not like we turn them down and stand them up. If I discuss the side that a block of them are bad for whatever reason, we can destroy them and get new ones built, but they are all pretty standard. I am actually sitting on one right now, which is a dual-core, two and a half gigahertz machine with 8 GB memory. This represents your slightly above average laptop that you would buy at a store. One of the reasons that we shifted to all virtual machines is when you are doing normal office work, you have to open your chat windows, Outlook, browsers for different things, and maybe Word or Excel. All that is just stuff that muddles up the water for your development environment, regardless of what development you are doing. By using VMs, even for scripting, we have our ID and the application you are testing open on that machine, and nothing else. So, that machine gets to just do automation stuff and nothing else. It's not interrupted by Outlook things. If you have 15 Chrome browser tabs open where you are researching something, then the hog of some of those sites aren't impacting you. You just have the application that you are testing and the IDE open. We have had really good success with this. The perfect mix for this is what we have: dual-core 8 GB memory. That is really good enough. We even have that for the machines with an AI engine on them. At this point, the AI engine is local. So, all the stuff that it does to look at the screen, interpret things, read it, tell you where menus are, etc., those are all running on that machine. I haven't really seen a blip on it. We tried to run it with four 4 GB memory once, and it was so-so. Let's face it - Windows 10 on 4 GB of memory isn't good anyway.

How has it helped my organization?

UFT One can definitely be a big component for continuous testing across the software lifecycle. We are personally still working on the continuous part of it. For the build to our test environments, we have it nearly all integrated. Unfortunately, on our build servers, we don't only because our build servers don't have touchable code. Think of it like you compiled the website, but you didn't deploy it to Apache, IIS, etc. So, that part we don't have, and that is a limitation on our end. However, we do have the plugins to be able to integrate with ADO or Jenkins, depending on the team, and even if that didn't work, we could send calls off to it. 

Mobile aside, we have a lab of about 35 or 40 virtual machines. I struggle with the number, because on any given day, a virtual machine just craps out on us because some Windows update made it bad, etc., but we have those readily available. They are all profiles using ALM Octane, saying, "These are the machines that have the web browser plugins. These are the machines that have Outlook configured. These are the machines that have desktop app A, B, or C." At any given point, a person or a non-person (like a CI process) could say, "Run these tests and give me the results," and it kind of works pretty nicely.

We are using the AI piece with all our mobile devices. When the AI capabilities that are built into the UFT One, version 15, first came out, I watched the presentation on it. I was there when they launched it at one of their conferences, and it seemed cool, like the whole Alexa thing. I don't know what I would use it for, but it was neat. All of a sudden, I was told, "Hey, you're bringing the mobile app in-house for development and testing." I am like, "that doesn't sound like fun at all." However, I remembered that AI stuff, so I thought, "I am going to try it out and see if it makes my life better." It has been an absolute game changer. 

It took testing mobile applications from being a headache to being fun. It's cool because you are actually working like a real user. For example, you are working with someone who has never really worked with a particular mobile app. You can click on the menu, then click on claims, and now you can see a list of claims. If you want to see just your medical claims or pharmacy claims, click on the filter. If you click on medical, then it should show you that. It is like talking to a human being. There is less code. When changes are made, unless it is a change to the user interface, where there are new features being added or taken away, you don't have to worry about it anymore. 

It is really awesome. For example, if you want to know your available balance at your bank. You go to your bank's app, click on checking and look at the available balance. You don't have to know the names of objects anymore. The objects can change a million times, and all I have to say is, "What is the dollar amount next to the label: 'Available balance'," and using AI, OCR, and all the different computer vision things that are built into the engine, it just works. It just knows about objects. The best part about that for me is those that objects differ from iOS to Android. I don't care anymore because I can write one ubiquitous script that will run on both of those. If the user interface is somewhat similar on the web, I instantly have a test for the web as well.

The multi-device test automation capabilities have allowed us to get to the coverage that we desired faster. We might have had to make a decision of: 

  • Are we going to take twice as long to automate?
  • Are we going to choose iOS or Android? 

Here, we didn't have to make that choice. We just knew that it would work. 

We did do a lot of trial and proof of concept with it. We started to realize that this technology would allow us to instantly have scripts for all the OSs, assuming there was a driver for it. For example, assuming there was a driver available for it and our dev team built it, I could get phone OS coverage for the Mozilla OS and have scripts for it tomorrow. The scripts that I have today would work tomorrow as it comes out. Because it is using the interface, it is using the screens and interacting with them. It doesn't care about the native objects that you have to worry about with traditional automation.

It has helped us, because as we are building scripts we have them all covered. If you want proof, we can run them all. We always do run across a selection. We don't just blindly have faith in it, but we have had it where we build a login script and it works across everything. You build a script to say, "Check a person's deductible balance," and it works across everything. The only time there's any difference whatsoever is if the phone OS has a difference. For example, if somebody wanted to test when you click on the phone number that the dialer opens, that experience is different from iOS to Android. So, that would be a slight deviation. For near everything else, I would say 95 percent or more of our actions - one script covers all devices or platforms right away. Unfortunately, our app is not available right now for iPads or Android tablets. When they decide it is available, other than putting a couple of those into the farm as physical devices, our scripts are ready for it.

What is most valuable?

UFT One has the ability to interact with multiple technologies. We work with .NET desktop applications, web browsers, web services, and mobile. Those are the main things that we work with. That is in terms of technologies. It is nice to have a tool that can solve all languages. Whereas, in other spaces, you would have to do a whole bunch of back-end work to make it so you could talk to desktop applications, mobile applications, websites, web services, etc.

We certainly leverage the IDE to build our tests. We make use of the integration with ALM Octane for recording our results. 

The reporting is pretty nice. You have reporting that can either be leveraged for an end-user, which is maybe a normal manual test, or a business user who wants to see some test results. Or, it can get deeper into stack traces, e.g., an automation person might say, "Gee! Why is that failing?" Then, they might get some analysis available to them for that.

We also use their mobile product, which gives us the ability to interact with UFT Mobile. This gives us the ability to interact with a fleet of real mobile devices on our campus. It is like having a remote desktop view into them, whether you are a manual tester who just wants to interface with it or an automation tester who wants to send one of your test scripts against a mobile device. This is a feature we are using more often now as our mobile app is gaining some more ground. In this day and age, a whole bunch of companies, including our own, are recognizing that more people are favoring their devices over their actual computers for getting data, consuming stuff, reading things, etc.

This solution covers multiple enterprise apps, technologies, and environments, and that was a big part of our decision to go with it. If tomorrow somebody says, "We are going to have a new Java app." While I can't blindly say that we have the absolute best automation software available in the marketplace for touching this Java app, because that would be borderline foolish to say. However, I can say that I can touch the Java app. That is a piece of cake. They are switching us from web services to REST services, and I got that covered. When mobile came underfoot, I didn't have personal experience with mobile when we started doing a mobile app, but I knew that it could cover it.

I rest knowing that anytime there is a new browser available that it is either covered right away or will be covered very soon. When Edge first came out, I don't think it was covered on day one, but it was covered pretty soon after that. Just knowing that it will cover pretty much anything that we run into is very reassuring. 

UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I can test either on their own or in the same test. I can test the .NET desktop application using the UI. I can test any kind of API that I run into, and the two most common things are either a web service using a SOAP Protocol or using a REST or RESTful service. The cool thing that I enjoy, we not only leverage it for testing the functionality of our services, but we also make sure that we make our tests as efficient as possible. I am a big proponent of, "Just because you can automate something doesn't mean that you should." For example, in your scenarios, you log into your bank website to do a transaction. Now, normally in the office, a teller might go to the system and log into a weighty desktop application to see that your transaction went through. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Well, what happens if you had an API to see that same thing? Why should I waste the time of the desktop application when I could just make an API call and have it in a snap of a finger? That has been a major benefit for us, ensuring that we are able to add efficiencies to our tests and doing the right thing as well as verifying that our APIs are working as we would expect that they would.

We have had it where testers have been able to free up their time, where they might be doing mundane, repetitive tasks, then shift them off to automation. We have been going through an initiative for the past year or so, going through each of our applications and doing what we have called self-service. That is the notion where a tester has the ability to push a button and have their tests run, then get results. 

Another thing with our self-services, they need to provide some input for some configuration. They need to say the name of a plan that they want to task, maybe they need to actually send it some test data to use. We have been working on building all of them as self-service. Instead of testers doing a lot of those things, where maybe in the past they could have only gotten through 10 test cases in a cycle, now they are able to get through 100 because they could just ship them off to automation. 

I am not necessarily saying that more is better. It sounds like it's better, but it's really helping us gain more coverage. I am sure you have heard in the past that a lot of testers may say, "Well, I test based on the time that I have." I get that as a vendor, but wouldn't be great if you could just say, "I test based on what I know I should be testing," and automation has absolutely helped us get to that point.

In terms of key features which are great with UFT One, certainly look at data driving. You are more than likely going to instantly fall in love with how easy it is to data drive. That is a big one. Everything else will be circumstantial based on what it is that you want to do.

A lot of people can use it. They did a nice job with trying to make a testing tool that wasn't just for diehard developers. It has record and playback. If you want to go in there and hit record to record a website, then do some variable substitution, have at it.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using it for about nine years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I have had tests run for one minute because that is all they need. I have also had tests, not because the tool is slow but because sometimes the application for testing is slow, that have run for five hours straight with no issue.

I haven't really had any stability issues. There have been times where if I leave the ID open for five or six days in a row, then it gets cranky. However, I don't know if that is Windows or my ID. 

For the most part, we are in kind of a weird place for maintenance. We just did our first big launch of this newly revised app this past year-end. Unfortunately, they kept making a lot of changes that would have broken any system anywhere out there. Lately, they have made a bunch of changes to the login process, trying to work things out, and our scripts never failed. So, there was zero maintenance required for that.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

There are less than 10 people who are doing the scripting for various things. Then, there are probably another 10 to 15 who do execution. So, they don't actually open UFT One, but they leverage it from a perspective of: I need to run this test, go and give me the results. We even have some business units who use it. 

In health care, sometimes it is a lot of work to verify a new plan. For example, there is a new company, and they want a new plan with some specific features. The way you really test out a plan is you file a bunch of claims against that plan in the test region and make sure that they pay out properly, but you might need to test 150 claims. Filling out a claim is dreadful. I wouldn't want to have to fill out one, let alone 150. So, they fill out a simple spreadsheet, giving it a kind of virtual handoff to UFT One, and UFT One does all the work. It then delivers the results. We do this for some business units directly and some indirectly, where there is a QA person involved in the middle. There are more than 15 people who do that, and that's really where the floating licenses help us out to open it up more. 

Who knows where it will go this year? I don't really know what projects there are, but one of the biggest things I like about any automation product is to add efficiencies, however we can.

How are customer service and technical support?

It is nice to know that we have support available for this solution. So, I don't have to go scouring through forum after forum, praying that somebody has run into the same issue that I am having.

Personally, I have had a chance to chat with some of their R&D folks. They are just absolutely wonderful to work with. 

The technical support is pretty decent. The one thing I wish I could do sometimes is tell them, "Listen, please don't give me Tier 1. Jump me to Tier 3 because I know this is a big deal since it rarely happens." For example, when you call up your cable company, "Did you try turning it on and off?" "Yes, I turned it on and off. That is why I'm calling you, because it didn't work." You have to get past some of those things. 

We do actually work with a partner, Melillo Consulting, who handles all of our Tier 1 stuff, which is common for a lot of people who have this product. They will buy it through a partner, and a lot of times the partner will give Tier 1 support. The partner is really great at escalating where it need be. God forbid, tomorrow it all of a sudden stopped working with Chrome, and I need it fixed now. They would be able to escalate the issue more quickly. Sometimes, I wish they could just take a description, work with it, and go. I get why they don't, because not everything is cookie cutter and they want to get to the bottom of it. However, being in health care, it's hard to share sometimes. There are certain things that I can't share with them.

I know the support is starting to do more now, but I would like to see them publish more thought-provoking articles, not like, "Hey, we have these new features. Hooray." I would like more, "Hey, today we're going to do an article about how to do a web test that needs to do an API back-end check." While I know how to do that, it would be cool to see them doing more articles like that, really getting out and selling and talking more about the features. You look at Sauce Labs, and they have this wonderful blog where they are constantly promoting new content all the time. I don't think they should be afraid to do that. They should treat themselves like an open source company that is just constantly promoting the use of their products.

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

They did try stuff with Robot Framework before I started. I don't know the history of that, but this was pretty much a relaunch of test automation efforts.

The AI capabilities provide multi-device test abilities without needing platform-development expertise, which is the best part about it. This sounds lazy, but because of what they have done, I don't have to know a thing about it. Here's what's cool: It can be a hybrid app or a native app. I don't care. As long as it is built, then I can push it to one of the devices and test it. When we first got the app, before we started using the AI stuff, I had the Appium Object Spy app, looking at things was not pleasant nor pretty. I had this laundry list of things that developers were going to have to add for me to even be able to identify the username field from the password field, shy of saying field one or field two. That is a terrible way of doing things. 

UFT One saved development time as well as an immense amount of learning time. For example if I handed somebody a web browser testing tomorrow with traditional automation, and they had never seen the internals of a web page, then they would stumble left and right because understanding what is under the covers of what you are testing is normally incredibly important. With this solution, it's actually not. You have to stop thinking like a back-end developer and start thinking like an end-user. This is a wonderful position to put yourself in, because this is really where the focus should be anyway. For me, it is starting to blend your traditional functional testing with UX testing, almost like they are blending together because of the techniques that I am able to use.

I've used Selenium on and off throughout my career. I have looked at tools from SmartBear. 

We do integrate with Applitools, which is a supportive thing. We don't consider them a competitor in this space. They are actually complimentary. 

We have never done anything with Tricentis. 

How was the initial setup?

Upgrades are usually uninstalling and reinstalling, because you never really know how the upgrades are going to take. Lately, I just uninstall and reinstall because I have usually found that if I have an issue, the first thing they say is, "Well, have you tried uninstalling it and installing it fresh?" Kind of like, did you turn it on and off again? So, I usually just do that.

I don't even know if it's feasible, but if there was a magic box that said, "Here are all my machines and push the upgrade to all of them." It would be awesome.

The installation is pretty much a piece of cake. If you don't know what technologies you are testing, I would argue installing it might not be the first thing you should do anyway.

What about the implementation team?

Everyone does automation and has admin rights on their machine, because we don't necessarily know the frequency in which patches may come. All of a sudden Chrome might change your architecture, then we need a patch. I could work with the desktop team and get a patch deployed, but that might require a lot of paper and time, so we just push it ourselves.

If you don't have admin rights, it's a pretty easy installation. You can do like a silent installer and run a really long command that has the answer to every prompt in it, then you can patch it up. You can do that, and it works quite well. I have never actually worked with our desktop team to get it packaged because they have a six-month backlog right now to get the apps packaged, but I'm sure it could be done: piece of cake.

Once it is installed, it works really well. It is 100 percent up to you if you integrate with ALM Octane. If you don't integrate it with ALM Octane, then it is one extra step that you don't have to do. So, you pretty much install it and walk away for about 15 minutes because it's got a boatload of DLLs to register, then you come back and have it working. 

It is pretty easy; It used to be a lot more complicated, but it seems like it has gotten better. I haven't had a bad installation in a very long time. It works with pretty much everything. The new Chromium Edge is out, and as long as you have 15.0.1 or greater, then it just works. We are on the latest Chrome and Firefox browsers, and it works well. We technically have a network issue that is preventing us from talking to our Macs right now, but once that network issue is fixed, we can remotely control Safari on a Mac with UFT One. 

What was our ROI?

We have it deployed on many machines. Because we don't have a template built, it did require actually going to each of our 40 machines and installing it. However, once it was installed, as long as we don't have to upgrade it, they just run. Honest to goodness, our apps that we test are more unstable than it is in terms of scalable. 

We have a suite of 40-plus virtual machines that are either developing in UFT One or running tests on it on any given day. In terms of the test execution, I have had tests that start with a .NET notification, go to the web, and then go to an API test to do some web service testing of the data that we started with. No issues with that either.

The solution’s AI capabilities cut down test creation time for mobile by at least 60 percent. I am getting to the point where I believe unless the test step is several sentences long, then I can write automation for a test step in 10 minutes or less per step. It is crazy awesome.

The advantage of AI for us has not removed the need for abstraction and having centralized functions for things, e.g., interacting with the page and a lot of the slang folk would know is this page object model. We still embrace a model for each screen, web page, or functional area. We have that abstraction necessary, so when a change is made, it's still in a central place and way easier to make it. Where a change in the past might have taken us 15 minutes to an hour, those changes should now take three or four minutes max.

For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process. 

On the AI side, we have suggested that we will have at least 60 percent maintenance cost savings, which is huge. That is calculated from:

  1. Not having to maintain both iOS and Android.
  2. Our estimate that there is not that much that we will have to maintain because it's "just gonna work."

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

It could be cheaper. I feel like it is a little expensive, but I never honestly understood the enterprise software space. For example, with Camtasia, if you look at the price of that, and you're like, "That just seems expensive. Why is it so expensive?" As an end-user, you feel like it could be cheaper. I would love to see them do some things to make it a bit more affordable. We have shifted around our licensing techniques because of the price. We started off with all concurrent users, but that was nearly twice the price of a seat license. So, we just kept a couple of concurrent licenses. because we are only paying maintenance on it now and shift to seat licenses to try to save us money. We also shifted to a couple of run-time licenses. We have equal thirds: run-time, seat, and full concurrent licenses. This is because of the costs. 

I wish you could look at them and price out each individual technology, but I have a feeling it would end up being more costly then. It feels expensive, as it can be upwards of $3,200 a seat or license, depending on how you license it, which sounds expensive. You are getting a lot there. I would love to see if there's anything they can do to reduce the price. We bundle to save, and there is always the ability for them to add discounts. It is like going to the store, where they are like, "Hey, this is on sale." However, if you just didn't raise the price in the beginning, you wouldn't need to have it on sale. 

The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it."

I expected the AI to require an upfront extra cost in addition to the subscription, and it didn't. There was no cloud service required for it, so I didn't have to go through security hoops because it all runs local.

It has more than 10 technologies that it uses. If you are only using two of them, then why pay for all 10? I guess we have just gotten so used to it, e.g., with LoadRunner, you pay for the technologies that you are using. I would hate to see what the LoadRunner license would look like if it was the same structure as UFT One.

They are an enterprise product. I get that they are expensive. Somehow, I wish they could be cheaper. I don't know how they could do it. 

If I could pick on them for one thing, their licensed portal is just abysmal. It is so hard to use. So, the licenses come via three fashions: 

  1. You have a licensed server with concurrent licenses where I basically lease the license for the time that my program is open. That one is not too bad and works quite well. You pretty much do a one-time setup of the thing, then you pretty much forget that exists and just go. We have some of these licenses.
  2. We also have seat licenses. This is the one where once it's installed, then it's amazing. However, unless you have a partner that can get it for you, using the portal stinks for getting the actual license. It is a terrible experience. Sometimes, it doesn't even work. When it works, it's great but it could be so much more user-friendly to get the actual license. 
  3. You just call your partner or Micro Focus, then they literally mail you a file. That would be easy, but I'm slightly impatient. So, I want the license and I want it now, so I will go into the portal and get it. 

I usually can go into the portal, as long as it is working, but it's not always the most obvious thing to work with. I can see that they're making it better. It's just not best yet.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

One of the biggest reasons that UFT One was chosen from some others at the time was one of the big projects was bringing on a .NET desktop application to replace an old green screen app. So, we knew that we wanted the web, but we had no idea that we were ever going to have a mobile app. I don't think mobile was supported nine years ago, but we knew we wanted it for the desktop app and web. Obviously, if we were only doing web, then we could have chosen other less expensive things, but we really needed it to do that. We evaluated some other products at the time to determine what would interact well with it. UFT One, which was QTP at the time, won out. The inclusion of its integration with ALM Octane is a big deal for us because we can control a lot of things from there. It just pairs very well.

The results could be a tiny bit better for UFT One. I have gotten used to them, and they're good. However, I am starting to see other tools go further with test results, and there are some tools that have no test results so I probably shouldn't complain. I know that they have an answer for it, and I'm holding because I feel like it's going to change. The UFT One product by name still uses VBScript, which is a tried and true, but a pretty old language. Its API test counterpart does use C#, which is quite wonderful when I am ready to make the jump to UFT Developer. Then, I can also use C#. I shouldn't complain. It's just that the AI feature isn't in UFT Developer yet, and I have fallen in love with it. So, I'm not likely to change.

What other advice do I have?

If you are looking to implement any tool, not just UFT One, you should always go into it with some form of use case or expectation of what you want to do. Opening up a tool and tinkering is never a good idea. If I sit you down in front of Photoshop, and just say, "Have fun.", I don't know what in the world is going to happen. But, if you go into it, and say, "Well, I need to be able to touch up these photos. I need to be able to do this," then those are use cases. 

Everybody starts with a super-duper happy path. "I want to be able to script logging into my application." That's great. 

"Now, I want to be able to take that and run that cross browser." This is good. 

"Now, I want to take that and I want to run them to multiple machines." That all depends on if you're thinking about execution or script building, which is regardless of what tool you are implementing.

For UFT One, you might need to polish up a little bit on your VBScript. However, with any automation tool, there is the totality of the language, and you probably only need to know 15 percent of it to do that automation. You don't need all those other structures. 

As you are beginning to go down your path:

  1. Have fun. 
  2. Don't forget about the need for abstraction. 

Abstraction is your friend. It can make your future maintenance costs incredibly low. Without abstraction, regardless of the tool you use, you are setting yourself up for a maintenance nightmare. Planning out the actions that you want to take are absolutely key. We started off with the AI bits. We did tinker a bit, but with any tinkering you realize, "Okay, I'm just kind of playing around, not really doing anything with nothing productive to show. I might have accidentally made something, but I didn't purposely do anything." So, we started going through our core reusable pieces and scripting them out. 

Do not forget that UFT One is not just for GUI. API testing comes with the products. You are already paying for it, and it is an absolute dream to work with.

What is cool is even just from 15 to 15.0.1 to 15.0.2, I feel like they're definitely investing a lot. They are continually adding to it and making it better to use.

We can build tests faster, then we can repeat the testing that we are doing faster. I don't think it will ever decrease the defects, but we can test with automations sooner and earlier. 

Theoretically, I don't need the application to do the test building. I just need it to proof the test. So, if a UX markup person can give me some screens, like in Photoshop, of what it will be, then we can technically build our automation against that, using just a screen. Or, if a developer can send me some screenshots or give me a sneak peek, then I can get screenshots and we technically should be able to automate and have things built when a release is done. Right now, we are just doing so much new feature development that we haven't been able to do that yet. I don't think it will ever reduce the number of defects, but hopefully it will allow us to find them more reliably and earlier. 

The one thing I think will help us out quite a bit is data permutations. For example, you are registering for site A, B, C, or D, there are a lot of permutations of data that you can push through there. For manual testing, you might pick the top 10 out of 50 because you only have so much time. However, we don't have to do that anymore. We can just send them all through with automation. I think it will help us have those scripts earlier and have them be more stable. There is technically nothing preventing the dev team from running tests. So, a possibility is we can convince them to run some more tests before they actually deliver the app to us. 

We don't use SAP at all at this time.

I would rate this solution as an eight point five to nine (out of 10). You learn to love it. People are really great at picking on things the moment they start using it. They look for reasons to hate it. That is not the way you should think about things for any tool.

Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Don Ingerson
QA Automation Engineer at a consultancy with 1,001-5,000 employees
Consultant
ExpertTop 5
With regularly occurring application releases, any QA team member can execute tests (regression suites) stored in ALM/Quality Center, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results.
In my 10 plus years of hands-on experience using QTP (QuickTest Professional) and UFT (Unified Functional Testing), I have observed that there has been a lot of confusion among the testing community on what the difference is between the two tools. Therefore, I thought it would be beneficial to clarify what distinguishes UFT from QTP because it is important for the reader to know. QTP is a functional and regression automation tool originally developed and marketed by Mercury Interactive which HP acquired in 2006. In 2012, HP released UFT (Unified Functional Testing) version 11.5, which combined QuickTest Professional and HP Service Test into a single software package along with newly designed IDE (Integrated Development Environment). Before UFT, QTP and Service Test were two separate…

In my 10 plus years of hands-on experience using QTP (QuickTest Professional) and UFT (Unified Functional Testing), I have observed that there has been a lot of confusion among the testing community on what the difference is between the two tools. Therefore, I thought it would be beneficial to clarify what distinguishes UFT from QTP because it is important for the reader to know.

QTP is a functional and regression automation tool originally developed and marketed by Mercury Interactive which HP acquired in 2006. In 2012, HP released UFT (Unified Functional Testing) version 11.5, which combined QuickTest Professional and HP Service Test into a single software package along with newly designed IDE (Integrated Development Environment).

Before UFT, QTP and Service Test were two separate downloads. So essentially, UFT has bundled QTP and Service Test into one package along with several other add-ins. It is also important to note that on February 28, 2015 End of Support Life for QTP 11 was reached which meant that a company had to upgrade to UFT to get technical support and access to patches, documentation, etc.

For clarity, I have pasted screenshots of QTP (Figure 1) and UFT (Figure 2) below.

Figure 1 – QTP 11.xx

Figure 2 – UFT 12.xx

With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files.

For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP).

For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.

If your concerns go beyond automating tests to providing evidence that specific tests were executed, what the test pass/fail status was, the user who executed it, the date/time of execution, UFT is top notch at providing test results because it has built in reporting features as well as allowing for customized output files showing exactly where a test step failed along with the timestamp. This is especially important for providing evidence that healthcare, insurance, defense, financial services, and mortgage companies might need, especially to furnish proof to auditors. UFT has at least one distinct advantage over Open Source tools. That is since UFT is an Enterprise tool, you do not have to download anything from the Internet which is good for Security reasons. Most Open Source tools that I am aware of require some form of download from the Internet which results in being less secure.

Note, UFT came out with a feature called InsightObject that has the ability to identify any object by taking an image of the object. Furthermore, by using the GetVisibleText the user has the ability to get the text off of the InsightObject even though it is essentially an image.

The InsightObject feature is so helpful that I thought it was worthy to dedicate a special section with screenshots along with an explanation of how the InsightObject feature works as shown below.

InsightObject Select learn mode feature shown above

After selecting the object that you want to add to the Object Repository, notice how the perimeter surrounds it.

How the InsightObject appears after being added to the Object Repository.

UFT is on top of the AUT (Application Under Test). Notice the small image in the code of UFT that represents lower left image with text "70 microns."

The actual VBScript Code is pasted below. Note how after the code was executed the text "70 microns" was extracted from image as shown from Print Log.

Browser("Space Images | Circumstellar").InsightObject("InsightObject70_microns").Hover
strGetVisibleText = trim
(Browser("Space Images | Circumstellar").InsightObject("InsightObject70_microns").GetVisibleText())

print "strGetVisibleText = " & strGetVisibleText

Print Log

strGetVisibleText = 70 microns

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UFT has improved our organization because when we have regularly occurring releases of an application, we can have any QA team member execute a set of tests (i.e. regression suite) stored in ALM/Quality Center, let the tests run unattended and then examine the results after test completion. We are also able to determine if any of the Web page links are broken by using an instance of MSXML2.XmlHttp. We have a script that does this by retrieving all the links on a page and then reporting the Status for each link. For example, if the Status returned is 404 we know that the link is broken.

Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis.

When considering UFT for your organization, I would first evaluate how large your QA department is and if you will have a business need to automate your functional and regression tests. HP recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period. If your IT Organization can afford it, I would encourage the company to buy both ALM/Quality Center and UFT. The reason being that UFT is very compatible with ALM/Quality Center in several ways. First, the user is able to store the test results in ALM/Quality Center. Second, ALM/QC has a built in scheduler that can launch a suite of regression tests initiated by the user scheduling a particular date/time to run. 

If your company is going to invest in UFT, I would encourage the company to do their due-diligence in making sure that they hire an Automation Engineer well experienced with the HP tools. This person must be very good at writing VBScript and knowing all of the advanced tips and tricks in getting UFT scripts developed so they will run without stopping unexpectedly. The QA Automation Engineer must be able to write functions from scratch and know the difference between passing a parameter by Value and by Reference.

I would also encourage the company to use a Citrix Server for UFT to be installed on. The reason for this is that it is much easier to maintain the Citrix environment with respect to patches, Browser versions, etc., versus every user having to make sure their laptop or PC is up to date with patches. Also, Citrix can have multiple sessions and be accessed remotely.

Review for UFT 14.00 added here.

In January 2017, HPE released UFT 14.00. The previous version was UFT 12.54, and HPE omitted using number 13 as a version. The most probable reason for not using version 13 is that the number 13 is still perceived by some as a superstitious number.

New Name Changes in UFT 14.00

The new UFT brand includes UFT Ultimate, UFT Enterprise, and UFT Pro (formerly LeanFT). The following are the new License names and the associated products included with them.

Test Combinations Generator

When developing automated test scripts, getting data can be time consuming because almost every company uses data indigenous to its propriety systems. Furthermore, to develop an effective automated script, you need data for both positive test cases, and just as importantly, data that will throw an exception or error (i.e. negative path) so you can build exception handling into your script to prevent it from stopping unexpectedly. The Test Combinations Generator makes this task significantly easier by utilizing a Regular Expression to generate the type of data you want including the specified format. For example, you can now quickly generate dates, URLs, passwords, confirmation numbers, shipping numbers, etc., that would be time consuming to do manually. The data created for a positive test case is labeled “HAPPY PATH” and the data for a negative test case is labeled “ERROR PATH.” Also, this feature can be used to help the whole QA team because you can generate data for the manual testers as well which helps free-up their time that they otherwise would be using to get data. My key take-away of the Test Combinations Generator is that it lowers Opportunity Costs for the whole QA team. By this I mean that the time and cost previously used to generate data is now minimized, so the QA team now has more time to focus on testing versus having to generate data.

Significant Changes

In my opinion UFT Pro is the tool that has the most significant enhancements. With the rising popularity of Selenium, HPE did a good job of making changes and came out with UFT Pro for Selenium. This tool includes a Java Library that extends the WebDriver API and also has additional locators and utilities. UFT Pro also has an Object Identification Center that helps speed up the time to develop a test.

Another significant change is that UFT Pro (i.e. LeanFT) is now supported on a Mac OS and Linux, in addition to Windows. Furthermore, it supports the latest versions of Firefox and Chrome, which was expected.

New changes for UFT 14.03

Screenshot of UFT 14.03 IDE (Integrated Development Environment)

New Object Spy functionality allows UFT's Object Spy to compare two objects.

Suppose we want to compare properties of "MARS" and "EARTH"

Now we can use the Spy Comparison Tool to get properties of both objects and compare at the same time as shown below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On September 1, 2017 the HPE testing tools officially became Micro Focus. It is too early to see how the transition to Micro Focus will change things. I am keeping an optimistic view that Micro Focus will continue to invest in R&D and place a priority on customer support. I believe a lot of long-time customers would like to see things run like they were back in the Mercury Interactive days, which was one of the most innovative software companies of its time. If Micro Focus develops the right strategy, they could become the dominant player in the software testing market.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author’s comments added 6/07/2016: Here are some interesting actual business cases at companies I worked at where automation (i.e. QTP/UFT) has been used to add productivity other than in a QA capacity.

1)   QTP/UFT can be used to send large volumes of emails to intended customers along with attachments. At a previous company we actually used QTP to automate this process that took an Excel input file with a field for Customer Name, email address, the text verbiage for the body of the email, and an indicator for which specific documents to attach and send using Outlook. We placed the documents in specific directories to be uploaded depending on the indicator in the input file. This automated process was very efficient and time-saving by sending out a large volume of emails with respective attachments with minimal problems. Eventhough at the time QTP was being used, UFT has the same functionality to execute the same process.

2)   At a previous health care company where I worked, when one of the clinical legacy systems was being decommissioned in place of a newer system, we were able to use an automated script to take the data from the legacy system and enter it into the respective fields of the newer system through the GUI (Graphical User Interface). This entailed downloading the data from the legacy system and importing the data into 12 separate Excel input files and running on multiple computers. This is an example of an unconventional but cost effective use of a QA automation tool.

3)   At a mortgage company that I worked at where previously a person or persons would have had to manually enter data into several fields while navigating through several screens, we were very successful in fully automating this process including logic and the specific values to enter into specific fields based on the conditions. For example, if one pre-populated field had a certain code, the script would use logic to programmatically enter the corresponding data into other fields. This saved the company time and resources by not having to hire people to enter the data manually. This one automated process saved the department sixty hours per week or 3,000 man hours per year.

Author’s comments added 12/26/2016: I originally wrote this product review for UFT 12.02. I updated this product review for UFT 12.54 to make the product review current along with the updated versions of technologies UFT 12.54 is compatible with.

Author's comments: This review has been updated to include UFT 14.03

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Learn what your peers think about Micro Focus UFT One. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: November 2021.
555,358 professionals have used our research since 2012.
TA
Test Automation Consultant at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Consultant
Top 20
Enables us to quickly obtain detailed product behavior information, but continuous testing needs improvement

Pros and Cons

  • "Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution as a front end for testing for our customers, to automate installations, for behavior testing, and for various types of API testing. We mostly use the technology on our websites, and sometimes on older technologies, such as for Oracle Forms applications.

How has it helped my organization?

One of the ways the product has improved our organization is that we are able to quickly get detailed information about the behavior of our applications, and we can provide this information to our customers through screenshots and additional information so that they can also easily check the reason for the defect or bug. We can work together without our customers needing special knowledge of programming. This is very important.

UFT allows us to install our applications much more easily, without our customers having to do anything. They don’t even need to click on anything. We can use UFT One to install via scripts. This eases the installation process.

The solution has allowed us to reduce test execution time. If we use it in continuous integration or in headless mode, it improves performance. Between the normal run mode with debugging, and the fast mode in Jenkins, it can reduce it by about 30 percent. That's a lot.

We can run the solution on virtual machines. This greatly affects our ability to control machine configuration and allocate appropriate resources for testing. We wouldn't be able to conduct tests or to carry out work without this solution. This is both very helpful and useful and we consider this a necessity.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable features include

  • the simplicity with which the product can be maintained
  • the ability to reuse its components 
  • the record and play 
  • AI

We haven't been using the AI feature for very long. 

These features allow us to provide good functionality to all our customers without the overhead of maintenance costs, while at the same time allowing us to work with many customers with varying capabilities on different projects. With only a few technicians we can help a lot of customers.

Running the solution on virtual machines allows us to run tests in parallel. It reduces a lot of the time it takes to test or to do certain kinds of work. We are dealing with customers who give an API to their customers and they're using our tools in the background. As a result we must use it to scale the load for these tests. This is a very important and useful feature.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

Micro Focus UFT One has been available for around two years. We have been using it since inception.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is very good, except for the example I mentioned regarding the data table. Most of the time you can switch to the next version without any problems. The old features and behaviors are, in terms of the code base, the same. It’s just that you have to find the icons, asking yourself “Where is my feature?” But the stability is very good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We use the product as often as we can. Between 50 to 100 people are using the solution. We are constantly looking for additional customers and projects so we have ongoing plans to increase usage.

The overall scalability is very good and utilizing the licensing server allows us to scale the solution as we need. One area which can be improved involves the running of instances on a single machine. 

How are customer service and technical support?

Overall, if you are able to reproduce an issue, their technical support can help you. But sometimes it can  be very hard to find a technician with a high level of technical background and knowledge of the product, so that they can understand the situation, the problem, and the behavior. This can be a challenge. Sometimes we have had to escalate to get a technician with the necessary background and knowledge.

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

We utilized QuickTest Pro (known now as Micro Focus Unified Functional Testing) for between eight and 10 years.

How was the initial setup?

We found the initial setup to be very easy. It is very robust and leaves no room for making errors. The availability of config files for setting up all the installations from a single master configuration is nearly perfect. The customer would have no problem simply opening the machine and using it.

As for deployment, the time can vary. Sometimes there are only minor changes and sometimes there are a lot more changes. Including tests, and to be sure it’s working in all cases, it should take no more than one business day.

It’s the same for upgrades. Micro Focus support has advised us that, in case of an error or a problem with upgrades, they cannot be sure whether that problem would exist on a clean installation. So we always uninstall the entire product and install it on a clean system.

We use one or two people for deployment and maintenance, in the role of test automation engineers.

What was our ROI?

Even without being able to provide exact figures, this product has given our company a return on its investment.

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

If you use it all the time and for different use cases then it is a good price. If you only use it one time a day for half an hour then it is pricey.

What other advice do I have?

The ability of the solution to cover multiple enterprise apps, technologies, and environments is very important to us and it forms part of our company policy. It is a point we had to validate before going with this solution. The reason for this is that we must meet the technical needs of our customers, many of whom lack a technical background.

UFT One provides cross-browser and desktop application support, although the cross platform support, which is not good, is not so important to us at the moment. These capabilities are important to us because our customers are using different kinds of technologies, some that are newer, some that are very old, and all kinds that are in between. To provide a good solution, the cross-browser and cross-platform functionalities are very helpful and necessary.

UFT One gives us integration capabilities with the API and GUI components, which is very important to us since we must occasionally alternate between the two. We can use the API to make calls through scripts, so we don’t have to use the GUI for UFT One. That’s why it’s important for us to have the REST API.

We can run the solution on virtual machines. This greatly affects our ability to control machine configuration and allocate appropriate resources for testing. We wouldn't be able to conduct tests or to carry out work without this solution. This is both very helpful and useful and we consider this a necessity. We have 100 percent usage of UFT on virtual machines -- All our instances are running on them. This allows us to help the customer access his application under test. The customer can configure the system with permissions and the like. All these points are, in some cases, not possible on hardware in our company, because of political restrictions, security reasons, et cetera.

The solution has allowed us to reduce test execution time. If we use it in continuous integration or in headless mode, it improves performance. Between the normal run mode with debugging, and the fast mode in Jenkins, it can reduce it by about 30 percent. That's a lot.

Overall, it's really easy. Try it out. There is nothing one can do wrong.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
AJ
Test Analyst at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Helped us notably reduce manual testing efforts and pass the savings along to our client

Pros and Cons

  • "It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
  • "[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."

What is our primary use case?

We are responsible for automation of the regression test cases. We have a standard set of regression test cases, which are comprised of SAP solutions, web-based applications, as well as some Windows-based applications. We have test cases which cater to each of these solutions individually.

In addition, we have test cases to test things from end-to-end. That means the data has to flow from one application to another and it has to be validated. We write reusable pieces of code, which are stitched together to create the end-to-ends.

In SAP, transaction codes are available and they are automated. They are stitched together to form a test case. For example, if a customer places an order on the website, we will get an order number in SAP. We will process that order in SAP to create the delivery with a particular T-code. Once we process that delivery, we will mark it as "good session," which means the order itself will flow out of our warehouse via the transportation. Once the customer receives it, we have the invoicing process. We automate these individual T-codes, and then stitch them together.

How has it helped my organization?

In our organization, a developer will develop a piece of code and give it to us. We will test it and tell them about any issues or defects. The way we do that is we automate some piece of their code, whatever the core functionality is, and get ready for the next iteration. That means that when the sprint goes from Sprint 1 to Sprint 2, we make sure that Sprint 1 is not impacted because of new code deployment. The way we have benefited from UFT is that we are not using manual regression testing. Whatever code we have developed will be enhanced in Sprint 2 , and we keep that piece ready for Sprint 3 regression. Therefore, over a period of time, we will have the flow ready, and we don't have to do manual testing from scratch for every release.

Previously, we were doing manual testing for each sprint, and when we got to an advanced sprint, like Sprint 4 or 5, we would have to stop and test that entire functionality again. UFT has helped us a lot in reducing the manual effort and in passing the savings along to our client. Regression efforts have been reduced by at least 20 percent, if not more.

Initially, we were using UFT 12 or 12.53 and then we started slowly increasing by installing the patches and moving to the next versions. When compared with UFT and manual execution, we have definitely saved a lot of effort, somewhere in the range of 60 to 70 percent when compared with our efforts to manually test. A script which takes around half an hour to execute in automation takes around 3.5 hours for manual execution, along with documentation because we execute things in a way that it creates the documentation as well.

What is most valuable?

It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting. There are many people on my team who have started learning automation.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using UFT for a couple of years, but I have only been using UFT One for the past two to three months. I am still learning many things about UFT One.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We haven't faced many issues with UFT One in terms of stability. If your system meets the requirements they indicate, you should not face problems. In a machine where we had less memory, we did have some trouble. Since we upgraded the memory for that machine, we have not faced any memory issues or stability issues with UFT One.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability, for our needs, has worked spectacularly well. There were some issues that we were facing with some of the patches. They were taken under consideration by Micro Focus and we got proper updates from the team.

When we want to increase the number of people in a team, because our licenses are limited, we sometimes face an issue, but that is not their problem because we have chosen limited licenses. We sometimes find it difficult to get people onboarded when we have a lot of work and that sometimes hinders the work. With an open source tool, you don't have any such problem. If you have a lot of work and you want to onboard more people you get it done.

Because our project was already in UFT, we are trying to utilize UFT One to have proper capabilities in AI and for automation from screenshots. But it is good to see a lot of changes and we are trying to utilize them in our upcoming releases and projects.

How are customer service and technical support?

Support is okay. We have not faced many problems. But if we do face some issue, we can definitely raise a ticket and the ticket is looked into. I don't have any complaints about customer support. I would rate it about an eight out of 10.

It's not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I have certification in Tosca and UiPath.

Tosca is basically scriptless automation which is also good. UiPath is not technically for regression testing, it's an RPA tool. You don't have validations, per se; you have to create them. Because I have a longer period of association with UFT, and some of the other tools did not help me in some situations, I go with UFT.

What other advice do I have?

From my experience, UFT One is good in terms of automation of multiple applications. For example, if you have five applications and any one of them is not suitable for automation by UFT One, you may have to re-think using it. But if all the applications are compatible with UFT One and you are able to automate, it's better to go with UFT One. 

We don't have much continuous testing in our process because we don't do Agile testing, but we do have some amount of testing for what we call "rapids," for defects or announcements. It is useful when it comes to the second or third sprints where there are use cases in which we can leverage speeding up the testing. But we haven't used UFT One for a continuous delivery, as in from build to deployment.

There are several new features which we can explore and use for continuous testing, but our project, not being Agile right now, has limitations in that regard. Management is looking to convert it into an Agile project soon and I expect we will start using UFT One full-fledged, with all its features.

I'm very comfortable with the UFT One for our project needs.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Kishore Kandula
Practice Head - Automation at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
UFT One supports AI features to automate web and mobile applications

Pros and Cons

  • "I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
  • "UFT 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."

What is our primary use case?

UFT (erstwhile QTP) is a widely popular test automation tool. During my initial days, I have used UFT extensively to automate test cases. Now, with the latest version of Micro Focus UFT One, there are added features, which addresses the new-age testing requirements. In my current position as Practice Head of Test Automation competency at a Tier 1 company, we propose various befitting tools to our existing or new customers. Whenever we work on a particular solution or requirement, we propose automation tools to support the entire environment to support for an end to end automation. If my customer is looking for an automation solution, they will typically ask, "Can you provide a solution to automate my end-to-end scenario?" Every proposal or potential requirement is a new business case for us.

How has it helped my organization?


In some of our recent customer requirements, we have proposed the Micro Focus UFT One tool. The primary reason behind this is that a customer may have different systems, for e.g., a mainframe system, which is a legacy technology, their current web applications, like AngularJS or ReactJS, could include SAP ERP. In such an ecosystem, UFT One is the right fit to automate end-to-end systems.


What is most valuable?

Scripting is a basic feature of UFT One. Some tools may use programming languages like Java, Python, or Ruby; but UFT One uses a very basic, simple programming language called VBScript. The advantage of VBScript for a manual tester is if he/she has a basic knowledge of automation, and loops/conditions, then he can easily understand whatever script is created in UFT One, using VBScript. The point is that VBScript is very easy to understand with minimal knowledge. It can easily be modified as per requirement. UFT One all the technologies including a legacy to modern technologies.

For one of our customers, we proposed integration between UFT One and Azure DevOps (ADO). We were able to easily establish that integration, which means the solution's integration capability with third-party tools is s. With some tools, you may need additional effort to communicate with source code management (SCM) tools, whereas UFT One connects easily. There is a keyword view available in UFT One. Using that keyword view, you can see all the statements in proper order.

UFT One has its own feature called Test Combinations Generator to prepare test data. If I have data in an Excel file, then it is very easy to create an object in either Notepad, file system object, or database object. We can easily retrace the data.

Particularly, I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed.

UFT One supports AI features to automate web and mobile applications. For example, suppose, if earlier there was a button in the left corner, which now has moved to the right corner. In such a situation, we would need to update the script. However, with AI, there is no need to update the script. Within the screen, if that particular button is placed anywhere on the screen, then we can easily handle it and the script will not fail. The integration part is very easy for mobile automation, as well.

We can also automate PDF and forms, using UFT One. For example, one of our customers prepared a lot of macros in an Excel file and created their own custom options in the toolbar. Their requirement was to automate the Excel file, but not read the data, so we had to handle the different icons in the Excel file. Therefore, it generated the pivot table, selecting different options in the pivot table and validating some third-party applications.

UFT One can automate different technologies like SAP, Oracle, SFDC, Microsoft products, and many more technologies.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using the solution for 13 to 14 years. I started by using an older version of UFT One, Quick Test Professional (QTP) 6.5. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?


UFT One is 100 percent stable. There have been no crashes of any kind.


What do I think about the scalability of the solution?


It is easily scalable. It supports increases in automation as well as integrates with third-party tools, like ALM Octane and Jenkins.


How are customer service and technical support?

Micro Focus technical support is prompt. They will try to get you a proper solution to your inquiry.

How was the initial setup?

It is very easy to install and configuration is not required.

Deployment time takes three to four minutes, though it depends on the RAM and performance of the processor. However, if you install MS Office, that will definitely take some time.

What was our ROI?

Our customers are always looking to reduce their efforts. This solution will give you such an advantage.

Depending on the landscape and stability of the customer application, they should see ROI (or the breakeven point) within six to nine iterations.

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

The license is important. If the license is up and running when you open it, there won't be any issues.

Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very cheap. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

There are a lot of tools available in the market, however, the primary advantageous feature identified in UFT One is simple: It supports legacy to modern technologies. This is why I propose UFT One.

Everybody is aware of mainframe systems because of Y2K. This solution supports a lot of terminal emulators that communicate and connect to mainframe systems. That is one of its key advantages. Some automation tools provide only a fewer number of terminal emulators, but UFT One supports a lot of terminal emulators to communicate with mainframes.

What other advice do I have?

If someone is new to test automation, we will typically propose UFT One.

Micro Focus recently started offering UFT One as a PaaS, which has been helpful for our customers.

I would rate this solution as a nine (out of 10).

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor. The reviewer's company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Integrator.
VK
Senior Load Performance Consultant at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
Consultant
Improved overall efficiency and is stable and scalable

Pros and Cons

  • "On a scale of one to ten, I would give Micro Focus UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
  • "They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."

What is our primary use case?

The use cases for Micro Focus UFT One vary from one department to another. We've got so many applications within Dominion Energy, but as of now, most groups are scripting the test cases themselves, even though they're not programmers and they don't have a true understanding of Visual Basic, which is a language used to script QTP. So the groups out there are doing it independently. I think they're doing mostly a record and playback, data-driven approach, which means they parametrize the data. But they're not specifically programmers, they can't make those scripts very sophisticated. And that's what I'm seeing. So it was my suggestion that we develop a framework for them in Selenium.

How has it helped my organization?

I don't think that Micro Focus UFT One has really improved it much. Until we move over to a framework where they don't have to spend so much time in creating data-driven scripts that become obsolete once a new version of the application becomes available. It may be doing some things for them, but I think it's probably improved their overall efficiency by maybe 20%. But once they have the framework, I think they will be able to operate this framework 24/seven in unattended mode. And that's when you see 100%, 110% improvement in efficiency. So we're not there yet.

What is most valuable?

We're not using the web services testing piece. They should, but I think they're using other open source tools such as Postmaster. But they're using QTP strictly for scripting automation test cases.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

Since I'm not an automation tester, I last used Micro Focus UFT One in 2007. But now I'm promoting it. I'm also promoting Selenium as an open source solution for future automation testing because the company can set up that framework and everybody can use it. And I'm having a meeting with the users next week on that. So we're going to be promoting Selenium over UFT. 

But I have used UFT within the last 12 months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I think it's a stable product because it's been around for well over 14, 15 years now. And I think it's stabilized QTP and UFT.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I think Micro Focus UFT One scales very well, but because it's not widely used... You can use one license per seat or per user who's automating it. So it doesn't need to scale, it works well enough with one single license per user. It's not meant for more than two users using the same license anyway.

Mostly developers use this product. They have a development background in Visual Basic and the use of the tool. With my current client, it's the business analysts that are doing the automation using this tool and it's not being used effectively. You have to have some form of development background, especially in Visual Basic.

How are customer service and technical support?

I've never used it for QTP or UFT, but I know some people who are supporting this product in the client site. They're okay with it. They get a response within 24 hours.

I'd give support a nine out of 10.

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

I've always been familiar with QTP and UFT. The other product that's taken over the marketplace is Selenium because it is open source, free of charge. It is in 90% of all the organizations, whereas QTP I believe has lost the market share.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup for UFT is straightforward.

What other advice do I have?

My advice to anyone regarding this solution is that if they have the money to purchase it, they could, but Selenium would be the first choice because it's more widely used.

UFT quite expensive. It's about $3,000 per seat, whereas Selenium is free of charge. So if you had 20 users who need to use it, you'd have to spend close to $60,000 on QTP plus annual maintenance costs. Whereas with Selenium, it's free of charge and you get all the support you need on the internet.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Micro Focus UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis. Whereas with Selenium, because it's open source, you're relying on the community to give you that technical support if you have issues and if you can't resolve them, there is really nobody to give you a patch or anything. So I think that with QTP having Micro Focus behind it, you've got some protection.

The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
DR
Automation Test Consultant at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Consultant
Reduces test execution time, performance well for non-web-based applications, but the AI features need to be improved

Pros and Cons

  • "I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
  • "The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."

What is our primary use case?

I am a consultant in my organization and one of the tasks that I perform is to assist other users with technical issues. Specifically, with UFT One, I am currently evaluating the AI features. I want to experiment with them and find out how it all works so that we can take that information to our customers.

How has it helped my organization?

The fact that UFT One covers multiple technologies helps in terms of end-to-end scenarios. When we have process flows, workflows, or scenarios that span multiple technologies, we don't have to branch out and use multiple tools. This is very helpful.

The platform supports both API and GUI usage, although we have only used it for GUI.

The continuous testing across the software lifecycle is good. When we have done continuous testing, we connect to remote machines and execute the tool. The only problem that we encountered was that when the system is not visible, or not logged in, then there were some issues. However, it has been several months since we tried this.

We have not really put the AI capabilities into practice yet because it is currently only applicable for web-based applications. Our customers have pre-existing tools that already perform this work.

In general, UFT has helped to reduce our test execution time. In particular, with our non-web ecosystem, the execution time has been reduced considerably.

At this point, UFT has not helped us to decrease defects because we are not creating new test cases. Rather, we are automating test cases with it. It might be the case for regression testing, as regression defects are much higher. 

We also use UFT One for SAP test scenarios.

What is most valuable?

I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications. For browser applications, we have a good number of non-commercial alternatives. However, for thick clients, whether they are Java, Mainframe, SAP, or .NET, this solution works pretty well.

The introduction of artificial intelligence in UFT is a step in the right direction.

The UFT automated manual process has helped to increase our test coverage. Not every one of the tools is applicable but there are some provisions in the latest version that can increase the testing coverage.

We perform some of our tests in virtual machines and UFT gives us control over the machine configuration, such as allocating specific resources. That said, we have our virtual machines configured by another team before they are provided to us, so we don't have UFT control them.

What needs improvement?

The AI functionality has a lot of room for improvement, as it has just started. For example, when a particular object is found, you have to scroll down, rather than have it done automatically.

The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Micro Focus UFT One for between six months and one year. More generally, I have used UFT for approximately 12 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is pretty good with respect to the traditional functionality, which has been existing for years. Some of the new features might not be as stable. In particular, there is a little bit of instability with the AI features that I have observed. I think that this is acceptable given that it is new.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

This product is scalable in some regards and not others. 

As for extending the execution of tests to other machines, you have to install UFT on every machine and get it started, which may not be very scalable. However, it is scalable in terms of generally extending coverage to other applications. Essentially, once you start automating an application, you can continue to build on that as new requirements or scenarios come in.

How are customer service and technical support?

I have not personally dealt with customer support, although when I was helping one of our customer teams, there was a problem that I could not resolve and I asked them to raise a ticket. Unfortunately, the issue was not resolved. I was told that the answer from the Micro Focus support team was not helpful.

Five or six years ago, I did deal with UFT support, but it was not for the UFT One product.

I have interacted with the Micro Focus design team, giving my input as to how AI is important. I was told that it's going to be available in upcoming releases.

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

I have used other tools including Tricentis Tosca, and I find that one, in particular, to be better for testing web-based applications. There are other tools including TestComplete, but I would recommend UFT One for non-web applications.

Tricentis Tosca is nice because it is a scriptless tool, you don't need to know scripting in order to get it to work. It is more UI-based and a new person can usually do well with it, and there is not much of a learning curve. This is in contrast to UFT One, where you need to know the scripting language in order to automate tests.

What about the implementation team?

I assist our clients in setting up their operations, such as helping to identify objects or setting up the scripting. However, I do not help with the actual deployment.

What other advice do I have?

In the past, UFT One did not support integration with third-party applications such as Jenkins and Bamboo. However, there are now some plugins that are available.

My advice for others who are considering this product is that they are looking to automate non-web applications, then it is a good choice. For web-based applications, I would recommend another tool, such as Tricentis Tosca.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor. The reviewer's company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Flag as inappropriate
NK
Lead Analyst at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Automation has helped reduce our testing timeline significantly

Pros and Cons

  • "It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We are working with a desktop-based application and we use the solution to automate testing of the application.

How has it helped my organization?

UFT One has helped us to reduce testing timelines. Earlier, during our manual testing days, it would take 15 days to certify a release, but with UFT One and automation, we are able to achieve that within five days. That's how important it is. It also improves the quality of our testing.

We have also seen an improvement in test coverage, going from 80 percent to over 90 percent.

In addition, it helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

Micro Focus UFT One is the latest edition, but I have been using UFT for four years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

UFT One provides pretty good stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability isn't really applicable to us because we have 10 virtual machines and UFT is installed in all of them. Jenkins is what takes care of the scalability, based on the workload. It allocates the jobs to any number of servers that are available.

I don't know how many people are using UFT One in our company, but on our team we have 15 people working with it. They are testers and automation engineers. 

Plans to increase usage depend on the new initiatives that are coming up. For about a year and a half we have been using UFT on 15 virtual machines, to its full potential. There are plans to increase its usage, because there are new projects coming up and we intend to deploy UFT on them.

How are customer service and technical support?

If there are issues, when we reach out to the support team, they are able to assist us. It may be something like we were running an older version and there was a new deployment that created this kind of issue. But the support team is always able to assist us. I would rate their technical support at nine out of 10 or even a 10.

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

We didn't have a previous solution. We were looking for a solution where, once the elements of the object repository are created they stay there. Also, when there are changes to the application, how quickly would it be able to transition as a result? We were mainly looking for object identification and consistency of the tool.

There aren't many tools on the market for automating desktop application testing, but one of them is Micro Focus UFT. We tried UFT and it seemed to be suitable, so we started using it for automation testing. It suited our requirements for desktop application testing.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We tried TestComplete, but I was not part of the team when the decision was made to go with UFT One.

What other advice do I have?

Everyone has their own requirements, but based on my experience with UFT, I have found it to be very consistent. If anyone is looking to automate web-based or mobile-based applications, UFT is very good. My advice would be to try it and explore UFT a lot.

Using it, we have learned how to design our framework and how to adapt it to improve our test suite. We have learned how to write effective test cases and how to improve the usability of the functions that we add.

AI is kind of exciting but, at the same time, it's not available for desktop-based applications yet. So we are waiting to make use of AI. In general, AI helps to reduce testing time. It increases the amount of reusability and it also makes the tester's life easier by asking them to identify the objects and differentiate them. In addition, it helps to identify any elements that could be missed by the human eye. Those are the features that we think will be helpful for us, once they are available for desktop application testing.

Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Micro Focus UFT One Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.