Likelihood to Recommend If you are testing an application and you don't have experience in performance testing, this tool will help you to test the load with some documentation help. It's very easy to use. and if you have complex scenarios to determine the coding and adjusting graphs, the LoadComplete will not be a helpful tool for you.
Read full review UFT is well suited if the price is not an issue, and if the requirement is about testing different technologies. If the application is based on Legacy platforms like Siebel or Mainframe, UFT fares quite well. For low cost web-based projects, there are other cheap and open source tools available. If it is about API testing or Mobile Testing, it is better to use other tools like TOSCA.
Read full review Pros We have been using LoadComplete in the Tech Department. I usually use LoadComplete to test the speed and loads of several applications we develop in-house. Moreover, we have also used LoadComplete to create reports and at the same time report any issues that we notice during a certain load. It is an affordable platform. LoadComplete has a lot of good features which has made my life so much easier so there are many pros of this tool as well. It is quite easy to use and comes in very handy. Read full review The simple front end will allow novice users to easily grasp the basics of automation and give them confidence to try things for themselves. UFT can scale up and run across multiple machines from a single controller, such as ALM, enabling hundreds of tests to be executed overnight. There is an active support community out there, both official HPE based and independent users. This means if you do encounter a problem there is always someone out there to help you. The later versions have many add-ins to plug in to other tools within the QA world. Expert users are able to utilise the many native functions and also build their own to get the most out of the tool and impress people as they walk past and see the magic happening on the screen. UFT also has LeanFT bundled with it, allowing automated testing at the api level - if you can convince the developers to let you in there. Read full review Cons Slow when the size of tests increase Coding is not possible Need to support flexibility for a framework that can be customized based on needs Read full review Its licensing cost is very high making it a very expensive tool. due to this many organisations are exploring options of license free tools like Selenium for automation. Though learning curve is large in case of Selenium but it is very cost effective & you an get lot of support online for Selenium. Though the scripting time is less since its easy to create automation scripts, the execution time is relatively higher as it takes the lot of CPU & RAM. Though UFT is quite stable but during long execution cycles we do get frequent browser crashing issues. In terms of costing TestComplete is also one option which is not free but comes with modular pricing. You can buy what you need, when you need. Read full review Usability Usability is really good because being an enterprise tool that might be an easy option to convince users to try this tool. It has a lot of easy-to-use, cool options.
Read full review Support Rating Customer support is good. If any concerns are raised, they are usually resolved soon, but when questioned about a feature LoadComplete does not support, it usually takes more time to resolve.
Read full review HPE are quick to reply and it's possible to get through to the actual developers shuold the case warrent it. Their online system allows updates and tracking of all incedents raised.
Read full review Alternatives Considered We chose loadcomplete because we already use SmartBear software for other automation solutions. Porting over test cases is easy and a user can have a test up and running within minutes. I do wish SmartBear would have better support and I haven't used any other testing tool in a while to make a comparison.
Read full review 1. It works solid for automate SAP and S/4 Hana applications and Fiori too. 2. Teams are well versed about UFT One 3. Able to handle maintained execution results 4. Publish Automation execution results in well manner to the leadership team/stake holders 5. More help content available 6. Able to understand non technical resources about normal view.
Read full review Return on Investment Many built-in features (like auto data correlation, load distributing etc) will save time for development. Read full review Reduces the total workload of keeping the team to test older (regression) functionality. QA testers can concentrate on ad-hoc and exploratory testing, saving time and effort across the entire project. Has built a better infrastructure for the client applications on which we can rely on for stability and providing regression results for any new features being developed. Led the applications a step closer to implementing agile practices and DevOps across the entire organization. Thus, providing a better turnaround time of new features to the customers and less maintenance headaches for the BAU team to address. Read full review ScreenShots