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 The qTest is well-suited for organizations transitioning to Agile or DevOps frameworks. It Streamlines test management with real-time collaboration and integrates with popular CI/CD tools. It excels in complex, large-scale projects needing centralized test cases management, traceability, and detailed reporting. However, organizations on a tight budget might find it cost prohibitive compared to simpler, low-cost alternatives.
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 Highly customizable: we were able to organize our test cases in unique ways that made our work easier. Connectivity with Jira: being able to pull requirements information in from Jira was a big point for us. Standalone tool: Being a standalone tool on a dedicated server, we were able to have access to our tests regardless of whether our Jira server was down. 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 In requirements , we can't add multiple test cases at once, or search multiple cases at once, need to do one by one. Here actually qtest needs to improve. Linking cloud hosted qtest and on-premise TOSCA is very difficult especially when you are working with client system with security wall. It requires tunnelling software which is not recommended. Read full review Likelihood to Renew This has been a core QA management tool for our organization and integrates well with our other SDLC platforms (Azure DevOps/Jira/Katalon).
Read full review Usability qTest is actually intuitive and user-friendly, despite my other scathing review aspects
Nick Larsen Quality Assurance Manager - Application Development & Support
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 The actual answer is 0. I have never experienced worse support, whether personal or professional
Nick Larsen Quality Assurance Manager - Application Development & Support
Read full review Implementation Rating Again, supporting documentation could have been a lot better
Nick Larsen Quality Assurance Manager - Application Development & Support
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 Extensive integration options with various third-party tools, enabling seamless integration into existing workflows. Allows for flexibility and customization of workflows, fields, and permissions to adapt to unique testing requirements. Supports robust requirements traceability, ensuring comprehensive test coverage. Lastly management decisions too
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 Better organization and centralization of test cases has led to more cohesive team collaboration Speed to delivery, deployments to production, are mostly maintained Performance issues have led to testing delays requiring the team to switch to other methods which contributed to QA bottleneck issues and sometimes even missed sprint commitments Read full review ScreenShots Tricentis qTest Screenshots