Introducing G2.ai, the future of software buying.Try now
It's been two months since this profile received a new review
Leave a Review

Opentext functional Testing Reviews & Product Details

Profile Status

This profile is currently managed by Opentext functional Testing but has limited features.

Are you part of the Opentext functional Testing team? Upgrade your plan to enhance your branding and engage with visitors to your profile!

Value at a Glance

Averages based on real user reviews.

Perceived Cost

$$$$$
Product Avatar Image

Have you used Opentext functional Testing before?

Answer a few questions to help the Opentext functional Testing community

Opentext functional Testing Reviews (46)

Reviews

Opentext functional Testing Reviews (46)

4.2
46 reviews

Review Summary

Generated using AI from real user reviews
Users consistently praise the product for its comprehensive testing capabilities and ease of use, making it accessible for both technical and non-technical users. The integration with various tools and support for multiple technologies enhances its appeal for teams looking to streamline their testing processes. However, many reviews note that it can be resource-intensive, particularly with large test suites.
Search reviews
Filter Reviews
Clear Results
G2 reviews are authentic and verified.
Verified User in Hospital & Health Care
UH
Mid-Market (51-1000 emp.)
"Micro Focus UFT automation for desktop application"
What do you like best about Opentext functional Testing?

Micro Focus UFT one helps in automating desktop based applications and also helpful in implementing BDD framework with the use of cucumber and selenium. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What do you dislike about Opentext functional Testing?

Selenium cannot be used for desktop based applications but UFT one makes it possible. The complexity of setting up the framework is high as we will be using selenium and cucumber for this. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Charan Raj Y.
CY
QA Automation Engineer
Enterprise (> 1000 emp.)
"Finest Automation tool for Windows Applications"
What do you like best about Opentext functional Testing?

The best part of HP UFT is

Windows application automation is the very frequently used one

It uses VB scripting, so very less programming people also can work on this.

It supports Windows, Web, Mobile and API automation of applications Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What do you dislike about Opentext functional Testing?

Nothing to say dislike

Should be reasonable price for limited usage of modules like if user wants only windows automation it should allow only windows application automation, accordingly they should charge the price Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Verified User in Telecommunications
UT
Enterprise (> 1000 emp.)
"UFT Reivew"
What do you like best about Opentext functional Testing?

We use UFT for test automation and for the reason it's very good! Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What do you dislike about Opentext functional Testing?

It stops suddenly at some point, but it could also be because of our test environment. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Pranjal S.
PS
Senior Quality Engineer
Mid-Market (51-1000 emp.)
"Automation testers heaven"
What do you like best about Opentext functional Testing?

UFT or QTP is a tool which is in the market from quite a long time now, and Micro focus has improved it a lot lately. Best ting about the tool is

- You get complete testing tools package, you don't need to run behind bunch of tools to perform your end to end testing

- Dedicated support team, which is quite frankly very effective

- Developers forum usually gives most of the answers in short span of time

- Ease of use, and easy to understand the VB scripting makes it available to wide range of people

- You can perform GUI, API and Web testing, and provides bunch of tools to facilitate testing tasks

- Huge developer base, hence easy for any company to adopt the tool Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What do you dislike about Opentext functional Testing?

-Since UFT has everything integrated in one tool, it become very heavy application

-Only supports VB scripting (and Java script through code injection)

- Costly license

-Limited to windows based OS Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Verified User in Information Technology and Services
II
Enterprise (> 1000 emp.)
"The All-In-One Automation tool"
What do you like best about Opentext functional Testing?

I started using UFT when it was a part of HP and started with 11.5 version. The best part about using UFT was the ease and range of things which can be automated with UFT. The initial part of learning UFT is not so hard as you get a record and playback option which will record all your manual intervention with the application under test and will provide you with a script to play which is simple to understand as it uses VB Scripting as a language part. Once you are comfortable with VB Script and recording part you can start writing your own custom codes to achieve the requirements. It supports Web, Windows, Java application which I used during the course in working with UFT. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What do you dislike about Opentext functional Testing?

The only thing which I hate the most about UFT is the resource consumption. Normally UFT will work with a 4Gb ram desktop/laptop but i'll recommend you to go with minimum 8Gb configuration else you won't be getting the best of performance from the tool and there are chances that it will crash at some point of time. The next big issue in my opinion is the pricing point which most of the projects cannot afford. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Verified User in Information Technology and Services
UI
Enterprise (> 1000 emp.)
"Automated functional Testing made Easier - UFT"
What do you like best about Opentext functional Testing?

1.With a simple record and playback approach , UFT develops regression and functional test cases.

2.Both technical and non technical users can use UFT.

3.It works only multiple interfaces like SAP , Web, Silverlight , Mobile , Oracle etc. based on the interfaces selected by user.

4.It can be integrated with test management tools like HP ALM, Test Director , Winrunner etc.

5.Enables test reporting for analysis.

6.Allows easy maintenance of test cases.

7.Excellent object identification mechanism.

8.Supports XML. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What do you dislike about Opentext functional Testing?

1.Cost of QTP is high.

2.Cannot run multiple instances- Does not support multithreading.

3.Performance is slow compared to selenium - Takes loads of RAM and CPU

4.All Addins are not free of cost . Few addins need to be purchased - Java, Oracle, Siebel

5.Supports limited versions of browsers Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Verified User in Information Technology and Services
UI
Enterprise (> 1000 emp.)
"Key word Driven automation using UFT 12.01"
What do you like best about Opentext functional Testing?

1)Key word driven framework setup using vb script and excel file for automating application

2)Object repository feature on UFT with smart identification features

2)Imaged based object recognition and virtual object creation.

3)User friendly IDE for writing your code

4)VB script programming used for automation is very easy to start with.

5)Execution without opening UFT using batch file.

6)Various Addin support for different types of application based on technology.

7)Inbuilt worksheet for adding data and using for testing application for data driven testing.

8)Support to API testing

9)User defined object identification

10)Reports are very informative and can be converted to various format.

11)Repository merging feature is very good.

12)HP support team is very helpful in resolving issues

13).NET spy feature is very useful to get in depth property of objects.

14)Support to different browser. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What do you dislike about Opentext functional Testing?

1)Cloud based automation triggering to automation suite

2)Support to CI/CD integration

3)Sometime failed to identify silver light object in spite of using silver light add in.

4) Performance is not good for some application and some times get hang and get crashed abruptly.

5)Not supporting object oriented programming languages like Java,C# etc.

6)License is expensive Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Verified User in Information Technology and Services
UI
Enterprise (> 1000 emp.)
"Silverlight Windows application automation"
What do you like best about Opentext functional Testing?

1)Object repository feature on UFT

2)Imaged based object recognition .

3)Very easy programming language to start automating application.

4)VB script programming used for automation is very user friendly and easy to start with.

5)RO property feature to get run time object properties for validation.

6)Various addin available for different types of application based on technology.

7)Inbuilt worksheet for adding data and using for testing application for data driven testing.

8)Support to API testing

9)User defined object identification

10)Reports are very informative and can be converted to various format.

11)Repository merging feature is very good.

12)Support to xml and xls files for integration Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What do you dislike about Opentext functional Testing?

1)Not supporting object oriented programming languages like Java,C# etc.

2) Performance is not good for some application and some times get hang and get crashed abruptly.

3)Sometime failed to identify silver light object in spite of using silver light add in.

4)Cloud based automation triggering to automation suite Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Patrícia P.
PP
QA Automation Engineer
Enterprise (> 1000 emp.)
"Excellent tool in automation!"
What do you like best about Opentext functional Testing?

I have been working with this tool, for more than 1 year, to automate test cases of various management applications of a reputed company. The range of compatible applications is surprendent and quite useful. UFT provides add-ins so you can implement tests for various technologies such as SAP, WEB, Windows applications, console, among others.

The tool is very simple and easy to interact with. Although I did not have previous experience, I easily learned how to use it.

In each solution created (known as test) we can create actions, with its own set of input parameters - data passed by the user to be used in the test. Within the test, there may be several actions and these can be easily organized and ordered among themselves.

If there are actions that are common to several tests, these can be invoked as external actions and thus, it is not necessary to repeat the source code that has been implemented previously, making the process simpler and faster.

In addition, you can create libraries where there can be multiple functions that are called within each test.

UFT also provides the "record" option that automatically generates the source code for the execution of the test, such as the action of clicking a certain button: objects are automatically stored in the repository and the code indicating the button click is generated.

Another feature is the reports generated at the end of each test. They accurately indicate all the steps in the test and whether they were successful or not. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What do you dislike about Opentext functional Testing?

Despite its great potential, this tool consumes a huge amout of resources. Even with a good processor, RAM and SSD, running tests with more than 3 add-ins makes the machine too slow and difficult to work with.

During the use, I came across a major limitation that even the support team couldn't help me: massive export of tests (solutions). The client had to move the tests from one location to another within their server. In order to do this, we use the "export" functionality of UFT, which forces us to open each test and select this option and specify the destination folder. By doing this, all links and references to external libraries and actions ceased to function. The only solution was to open each test and fix the various connections, for a total of 5000 tests! This tool is suitable for large companies, however, it is little prepared to massive changes of items, which is a serious problem in large companies.

The licenses of this tool are very expensive, which limits the small and medium companies to use it. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Verified User in Education Management
AE
Mid-Market (51-1000 emp.)
"Micro Focus Unified Functional Testing for Automation testing!"
What do you like best about Opentext functional Testing?

It has best Grafical User interface and it is very easily understandable , It has lot of feature like Record and Play back . It can be used for mobile applications and main frame applications and so much of options are available Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What do you dislike about Opentext functional Testing?

It is very expensive and it takes so much of time to load. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Pricing

Pricing details for this product isn’t currently available. Visit the vendor’s website to learn more.

Opentext functional Testing Comparisons
Product Avatar Image
Tricentis Tosca
Compare Now
Product Avatar Image
UiPath Agentic Automation
Compare Now
Product Avatar Image
Cypress
Compare Now
Product Avatar Image
Opentext functional Testing