Unified Functional Testing (UFT, formerly known as HP UFT and before that QuickTest Professional or HP QTP) is a functional and performance testing tool acquired by Micro Focus from Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, now from OpenText.
N/A
Selenium
Score 8.3 out of 10
N/A
Selenium is open source software for browser automation, primarily used for functional, load, or performance testing of applications.
We need to look at open source tools if the team has time to learn like Selenium.
Selenium can integrate with just about anything to give you a robust framework such as Maven for source code compilation, Test NG to drive tests, Jenkins or Hudson to integrate into a Continuous …
Since this tool is licensed most of the work is performed by the tool and one needs to just record or create basic script and it should be running in no time
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
Since Selenium is restricted to only Web based applications it isn't suitable for our project which has Mainframe and desktop based applications in majority. Selenium is open source and free so it can be preferred for some projects
UFT has the advantages of supporting different types of technologies. Different competitive tools were not able to support the wide range of technologies which UFT does. UFT has a strong history and has been ranked one among all the Test Automation tools for quite some time. …
The only real competitor is Selenium but the simple ease and advanced features of UFT won out during the selection process. Also the ability to test against non-web based applications can come in handy.
Most of the test tools are similar in nature to what they do. Every tool has its own quirks, making them necessary to understand how and what they do, before we get to start using them; which also happens to be the key to good automation testing. Considering the HP toolset, …
We got on board with HP UFT as we were sold on the BPT model used by HP. IT was an excellent way to create reusable scripts. That was the biggest advantage of going with HP UFT. Also have 1 tool for GUI and API testing. Previously, we had used service test from HP. But really …
HP UFT is an excellent tool for test automation; very flexible and powerful. It is much more intuitive than and easier to use than Selenium, however, the only downside when compared side by side with freelance tools like Selenium is the pricing. Selenium can be acquired for …
The excel integration was key for using Selenium. I needed to be able to pull excel reports and use SQL, so I needed to find a program that would work with Excel natively. Selenium allowed me to reuse some of my existing SQL code and add a level of automation that I was not …
When we compared Selenium to Saucelabs, [we found that] both have their own set of advantages but [preferred] Selenium [in the end]. [With] Selenium we have a uniform setup in place to test both the framework and grid which makes it preferable over Saucelabs. [The] test …
At the time of adoption, there were not many other alternatives that were even close to being competitive when it comes to browser testing. As far as I know now to this day, there is still little competition to Selenium for what it does. Any other browser-based testing still …
Customers are always spending less cost on tools and prefer open-source tools which leverage all applications Can be tailored your framework in selenium according to application Moreover CI/CD pipeline is easy in selenium compared to other tools Can be built custom test …
The main Selenium usage is in the security field. Selenium drives the web application and let ZAP test some piece of software and UI in order to find security issues. Is Jenkins in charge to run it and manage reports? For the reporting, we tried many solutions, including …
Open sourced and free: Multiple language support: The community: Wide plugin support: Easy installation and intuitive usage: Cross-browser support: Remote testing: Multiple testing and parallel testing execution:
The main reason I prefer Selenium is because it has a fairly common user community and because it is open source, it works on many platforms (Windows, Linux, IOS) without any problems. In addition, it gives us a lot of options for writing functional tests. For errors that we …
Since it is an open-source testing tool, there is no licensing cost involved. Selenium is a cross-platform tool that supports cross-browser testing. To manage and report test cases Selenium can be easily integrated with frameworks like JUnit, TestNG.
We have looked at other options, but none are open source like Selenium and easily plug able into different web applications. Selenium does not cost anything, and although you don't get support for it, there are many technical forums our there that provide troubleshooting if …
The first obvious thing is Selenium, an open-source tool, and it has a wide-open community for support. Well, on the other hand, Silk Test is a paid tool. With the combination of different tools in the market, we can build a solution for Web and Mobile based automation using …
UFT is a paid tool from microfocus and able to automated alomsts all platforms but there is Fee for licensed versions software. TOSCA is also a paid tool from Tricentis which does not require coding skills from tester and implements mode based automation. where as selenium is …
TestComplete is more like an enterprise automation testing tool, that consists of many built-in functions. The license is rather expensive https://smartbear.com/product/testcomplete/pricing/. TestComplete's user community is not as large as Selenium user. Smartbear's …
We use both the products in our work. Mostly we avoid Selenium because we have replaced that half of the work with RPA, which works faster than Selenium and with less brainstorming. Some of our work can only be done with Selenium, while some of our work can work faster with RPA.
All alternatives are not listed here (like QTP), but Selenium beats all of them because it's free, there are tons of guides and tutorials on the internet, and there are lots of extra libraries that use Selenium.
We were considering HP QTP against Selenium. but we chose Selenium because of the following reasons: 1. Selenium is more widely used and has more online support community
Ghost Inspector, a cloud-based automated web app testing tool, used for recording and playback, a lot like Selenium IDE. Ghost Inspector provides Google Chrome and Firefox plugins to record browser actions and allows users to save the tests on their cloud platform. It allows …
The tool has evolved to be the market leader in paid GUI testing, at last count, there are over a dozen add-ins (not including subtypes) that can be selected at startup based upon the technology of the application being tested. This includes the standard web types to new mobile applications. It can be plugged into your development tool of choice and reports the results to whatever level you desire.
When you have to test the UI and how it behaves when certain actions are performed, you need something that can automate the browsers. This is where Selenium comes to the rescue. If you have to test APIs and not the frontend (UI), I would recommend going with other libraries that support HTTP Requests. Selenium is good only when you have no choice but to run the steps on a browser.
Integration & Support: a) The way tool integrates with other platforms like .net, mainframe is amazing. It Supports new and legacy web technologies, terminal emulators, and Windows thick client applications. b) It Supports Continuous integration by integrating with Jenkins, Git etc. c) UFT supports cross browser testing & it supports all main browsers like IE, Firefox, Chrome and Apple Safari. d)It’s compatibility with ALM can help store automation execution results back in ALM & even allows us to schedule the automation execution at required date/time.
Amazing Features: UFT has so many features but at the same time, it is quite easy to learn & it doesn’t take long to train staff on it. Few amazing features which adds lot of value while scripting are:
a) Test Combinations Generator (TCG) - It helps to create test configurations by using the parameters in tests and their possible values to create multiple possible data combinations.
b) Insight Recording – It recognizes controls based on their appearance and not their native properties. This can be useful to test controls from an environment that UFT does not support or even from a remote computer running a non-Windows operating system. When UFT runs the test or component, it recognizes the controls in the application by matching them to the images saved with each of the Insight test objects.
c) UFT has built in reporting features as well as allowing for customized output files showing exactly where a test step failed along with the timestamp.
UFT supports BPT (Business Process Testing), a component-based testing framework which provides strong and efficient platform to test complete business process manually and automatically combines manual and automation tests with less duplication and its component reusability feature makes the testing process very fast.
It helps improving efficiency in regression testing and functional testing, in that we automate a lot of repeatable tasks.
Organization doesn’t need to have a skilled coder to write a basic automation script with UFT.
Various formats of reporting support should be possible. Right now UFT supports exporting reports in either HTML or PDF in short or detailed format. If exporting reports could be extended to Excel, CSV, XML, XSLT, MHT formats that would be greatly appreciated.
They should improve performance. There will be performance degradation on the test environment due to long continuous executions of automation scripts which leads to inconsistency of results, a better way to resolve this problem should be addressed at some point.
Consistency during execution should be maintained.
Recognize Adobe Flash and MS Silver Light elements without additional help
Detect and locate Java applets ingredients
Having the "Wait-till-Displayed" or "Wait-till-Present" as a built in Web Driver function instead of requirement for writing loops and defining expliccit wait, visiblewait, invisiblewait, etc.
We love this product mainly because of its high customization abilities and the ease of use. Moreover, its free and can be learned easily through online communities and videos. The tests are more consistent and reliable as compared to Manual tests. It has enabled us to test a large number of features all in one go, which would have impossible through manual tests. The reports generated at the end of the tests are really helpful for the QA and the development teams to get a fair view of the application.
For those who are unfamiliar with coding, there is a bit of a learning curve. There is plenty of helpful documentation and resources but it can take a little time to get the software up and running. Once you get the hang of how Selenium works, and what it can do, you realize how many things you can use it for, and how many processes you can automate.
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.
The Selenium app has a pretty fat community of users. For the problems we are experiencing, we are primarily receiving support from these communities. In addition, there is widespread service support. Instant support is given to the problems we experience when we need Online support. We and our team are happy to provide this support, especially before important deployment processes
We did everything we needed to use it. Now we can execute our tests on different operational systems and browsers running few tests simultaneously. We also implemented Appium framework to execute our tests on mobile devices, such as iPhones, iPads, Android phones and tablets. We use SauceLabs for our test execution and Jenkins for continuous integration.
UFT has the advantages of supporting different types of technologies. Different competitive tools were not able to support the wide range of technologies which UFT does. UFT has a strong history and has been ranked one among all the Test Automation tools for quite some time. There is a wide and strong community across the internet.
At the time of adoption, there were not many other alternatives that were even close to being competitive when it comes to browser testing. As far as I know now to this day, there is still little competition to Selenium for what it does. Any other browser-based testing still utilises Selenium to interact with the browser.
Generation of detailed finding reports helped in cost savings in regard to direct labor.
Quality Assurance technicians found value in repeating mundane duties that they perform daily. It saved mental energy due to the automation process.
The value was established in high volume usage in setting up meetings as well as new accounts with A/B testing. Also merely cleaning up old test documents by evaluating them and organization or deletion.