Likelihood to Recommend 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 I think QAComplete is a great way to organize the literal hundreds of development bugs that are discovered throughout an agile-based project. Teams aren't always able to hotfix items on the fly and this tool provides a great repository and facility for storing and prioritizing those technical debt items that may get overlooked from sprint to sprint. It also let's everyone on the team get a clear understanding for project progress.
Read full review Pros 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 Allows us to create individual tests then group them into comprehensive test plans. Allows me to specify custom fields that match our product features to categorize both tests and defects. Allows me to create a series of requirements then match tests against them for validation. Charles Palanzo Engineering Manager | CTO | Technology Start-Up Consultant | Advisor
Read full review Cons 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 The user interface can be somewhat perplexing and difficult to navigate at times. Naming conventions aren't always succinct and additional training is needed by those who have more experience using the program. A modern refresh of the UI would help keep the product from looking dated. Read full review Usability I gave QAComplete this rating because though I do feel that it is a powerful tool, it's definitely not designed for the everyday user. Obviously the target demographic is QA specialists who should be team members that are very technical and methodical in their approaches. However, for the rest of the team, it can often time prove difficult to navigate. Also, the UI is in need of a serious refresh.
Read full review Support Rating 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 I have not had to work with their customer service directly yet. Our client has been utilizing this tool for years, so I would assume that the support they have received would be good enough to keep them wanting to continue to use the product.
Read full review Alternatives Considered 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 A comprehensive solution
Charles Palanzo Engineering Manager | CTO | Technology Start-Up Consultant | Advisor
Read full review Return on Investment 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 Helped us in increase the quality of our firmware releases. Helps us continuously improve our testing Charles Palanzo Engineering Manager | CTO | Technology Start-Up Consultant | Advisor
Read full review ScreenShots