488
Back to Top

HP QTP SITE TO HP UFT CC SW E-LTU

Mfg. Part: TF198AAE | CDW Part: 3035384
$9,600.00SAVE $1,076.37
$8,523.63Advertised Price
Lease Option ($239.43 /month) Lease Availability
Close

Have leasing questions? Let us know how can we help.

Note: Leasing is available to organizations only. Leasing is not available to individuals.
800.808.4239
Mon-Fri 7am-7:30pm CT
Availability:8-10 days
Orders placed today will ship within 10 days
Product Reviews
HP QTP SITE TO HP UFT CC SW E-LTU is rated 3.6 out of 5 by 27.
Rated 3 out of 5 by from You can automate your testing for a lot of different platforms. Scalability is a little difficult as you need to install it on the machines. Valuable Features:For HPE UFT, you can automate your testing for a lot of different platforms. It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications.Improvements to My Organization:For test automation, it helps to speed up the testing and to speed up the software delivery, especially for HPE UFT because you have lots of test automation tools. Also, if I compare HPE UFT with the HPE QTP solution, then HPE UFT is more user-friendly in its use. You still have to program it, but you don't have to program it all of the time; so for a user who isn't used to working with code, he can do other things in HPE UFT.Room for Improvement:I'm really looking forward to seeing the HPE StormRunner Functional. If it's possible to do it in a good way from the cloud, and you don't have to install it. I've seen that working for the HR manager and ALM solutions, so it would be very helpful. You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out.Use of Solution:I have used HPE Unified Functional Testing (UFT) for one and a half years, whereas the HPE QuickTest Professional (QTP) for a couple more years before that.Stability Issues:We have to download it, then install it on our own machines and the machines sometimes aren't stable; since we have PDIs, also the UFT isn't stable and I don't know yet where the connection is.Scalability Issues:Scalability is a little difficult because you need to have the machines and then, have to install it. It is less scalable than the other products. For example, the HR manager just takes another workspace in the cloud and then, you work.Technical Support:I'm more happy with the SaaS support for the HR manager and ALM than with the off-premises support, that I have to so through for UFT. This is because, often, when I have an issue with UFT, I get slow responses and most of the times, it is in regards to the things that I have already Googled and tried to figure out myself. So, it doesn't always help me.Initial Setup:HPE UFT is quite complex to set up.Other Advice:I, myself mostly, have experience with the HPE tooling and I haven't been in the position where I could decide what tooling to choose. I'm hired because I have this knowledge but I would say usability of the tools, (i.e., how you can use it) is the most important criteria while selecting a vendorDisclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2017-07-01
Rated 3 out of 5 by from Supports desktop, web and mobile product automation. Various formats of reporting support should be possible. Valuable Features:- Built in object repository and storing elements.- Less coding experience.- Reporting dashboards.- Supports desktop, web and mobile product automation.- Continuous integration is possible with QC and Jenkins.- Good customer support.Room for Improvement:- 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 and consistency during execution.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.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2017-04-25
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Capable tool compared to Selenium or other testing tools available. Valuable Features:It helps us consolidate our efforts. All of our projects are in there. We are also in the life science domain so we have many more compliance requirements which we have to adhere to. It has helped us automate our testing. We have also integrated it with our other tools such as JIRA and TFS. It's pretty good so far.Room for Improvement:We look at service packs, what bugs they have and fixes. We just want to keep pace with where the industry is going, where the shift is in terms of quality assurance and requirement management. HP is very strong on the testing side, but in the last few years with the agile methodology it has lagged behind. It's slowly catching up and eventually it will get there, but we love the eco-system we're in and will continue to move forward.Stability Issues:It's stableScalability Issues:It's very scalable, a very robust kind of solution and we recommend it to anyone who's looking for a testing automation kind of tool.Technical Support:We use an HPE partner for our support needs, but tickets do go to HPE eventually, level two, level three. We have never had an issue.Initial Setup:It's very straightforward.Other Advice:UFT is a very mature product, but again, changes. This is a highly fast-paced, fast rolling field, and you have to keep up the pace with them. There are a lot of open source testers, and they do the job. UFT is a very capable tool compared to Selenium or other test tools available on the market. It can do the job is it cost effective? Investment is definitely on the higher side initially in terms of licensing cost.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2017-04-24
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Capable tool compared to Selenium or other testing tools available. Valuable Features:It helps us consolidate our efforts. All of our projects are in there. We are also in the life science domain so we have many more compliance requirements which we have to adhere to. It has helped us automate our testing. We have also integrated it with our other tools such as JIRA and TFS. It's pretty good so far.Room for Improvement:We look at service packs, what bugs they have and fixes. We just want to keep pace with where the industry is going, where the shift is in terms of quality assurance and requirement management. HP is very strong on the testing side, but in the last few years with the agile methodology it has lagged behind. It's slowly catching up and eventually it will get there, but we love the eco-system we're in and will continue to move forward.Stability Issues:It's stableScalability Issues:It's very scalable, a very robust kind of solution and we recommend it to anyone who's looking for a testing automation kind of tool.Technical Support:We use an HPE partner for our support needs, but tickets do go to HPE eventually, level two, level three. We have never had an issue.Initial Setup:It's very straightforward.Other Advice:UFT is a very mature product, but again, changes. This is a highly fast-paced, fast rolling field, and you have to keep up the pace with them. There are a lot of open source testers, and they do the job. UFT is a very capable tool compared to Selenium or other test tools available on the market. It can do the job is it cost effective? Investment is definitely on the higher side initially in terms of licensing cost.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2017-04-23
Rated 4 out of 5 by from We've been able to ramp up non-technical users and have them understand how to do general debugging. Valuable Features:UFT provides us with solid automation for our test cases.Improvements to My Organization:Its ease of use means we've been able to ramp up non-technical users and have them understand how to do general debugging very easily.Room for Improvement:Tighter integration between ALM and UFT, especially from a reporting perspective, for automation reporting. There's good integration in my opinion, but it just needs to be a little more rock solid.Use of Solution:We've been using it for around three and a half years.Stability Issues:For the most part UFT has been pretty good. Getting it to interact with ALM nicely has been a challenge for us sometimes.Scalability Issues:It's been able to scale to our needs.Technical Support:Good, sometimes a little slow, but overall pretty good.Previous Solutions:We didn't have any other solution in place, and needed to have a much better solution than doing testing with Excel files.Initial Setup:It's straightforward.Other Solutions Considered:HPE was one of the very few vendors that we actually had on the list. We went with HPE because my boss actually was very familiar with the product, and felt it fits our organizations needs extremely well.Other Advice:Give it a shot, if you take the time to invest in it, it works.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2017-03-23
Rated 4 out of 5 by from It's improved the way our organization functions by automating test cases that were previously done manually. Valuable Features:The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation.Improvements to My Organization:It's improved the way our organization functions by automating test cases that were previously done manually. It also improved the robustness and execution time of these test cases.Room for Improvement:It doesn’t support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this. It's also quite an expensive solution.Use of Solution:We've been using it for one year in my project.Deployment Issues:We've had no issues with deployment.Stability Issues:It's been stable for us.Scalability Issues:No issues with scalability.Customer Service:8/10Technical Support:8/10Previous Solutions:I've used UFT for many years as it is the most user-friendly solution for automating tests.Initial Setup:The initial setup was a straightforward, step-by-step process.Implementation Team:Our in-house admin team implemented it.Cost and Licensing Advice:It's an expensive solution.Other Advice:This tool is awesome for automation even though it is expensive.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2017-01-23
Rated 3 out of 5 by from It works on multiple platforms and technologies, including Oracle forms and Oracle DB. The licensing and pricing model is confusing. Valuable Features:The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies. I need that because we have an application based on Oracle Forms and Oracle DB, and I'm not aware of any other tool that would provide the same level of functionality.Improvements to My Organization:Since I started, we invested in UFT and automation and we have significantly reduced our release cycle time. That has freed up the people who were doing manual regression testing to do more valuable work. The net result is that our cycle time has gone down by a factor of hundreds of percent. And year-on-year, over the three years our error detection rate, by the same people who are now doing good manual testing, has increased by over 300%.Room for Improvement:One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to UFT, Unified Functional Test. Ater we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all. We only had the functional test piece of Unified Functional Test. Which, from a marketing or an understanding point of view, was a little bit questionable. So then I needed to go and spend a significant sum of money to get the "Unified" aspect of the Unified Functional Test.Stability Issues:It’s awfully stable. Not even something I consider, to be honest, in regards to UFT. It's always worked for the last ten years. It just works.Scalability Issues:We have not really had to scale it much. It is something that we're looking at, which is why I spoke to some representatives at a recent conference. One thing that's unclear to me at the moment is the benefits, or otherwise, of integrating the UFT product with the architecture that we're going towards; more open source and continuous development, continuous integration type tools. I know HPE does integrate, but I'm not sure how and where it integrates and what the benefits are.Technical Support:I have used technical support and it was okay. What I was doing, in fairness, was fairly non-standard. I was transferring licenses between different locations, different countries, different currencies, different regions; it was all part of the takeover process. It was a little bit complex and drawn-out, but we got there in the end.Previous Solutions:UFT was already installed upon my arrival to the organisation. However, having said that, it is the solution I would have gone for. UFT really doesn’t have a comparable competitor in that space. They used to have competition, but I don't think they really have competition anymore.Initial Setup:The UFT is a simple product. With the exception of the licence server, a six-year-old can do it.Cost and Licensing Advice:The licensing and pricing model is confusing.Other Solutions Considered:There's actually two parts to this, because we use UFT for two different functions. For one of those functions, there really were no other vendors on a shortlist. For the other technology stack, we were looking at SmartBear. We were looking at Selenium, which we still use some. We were also looking at various open source tools. The reason we went for UFT specifically was because you could integrate API testing with client-server type testing, which was important to us.When looking at a vendor, I look for stability first, but that's almost a prerequisite anyway. What is really important to me, and will be increasingly important to me, and I'm guessing, the majority of our customers or potential customers, is HPE's and their product’s ability to integrate with an ever diverging technology landscape. That's the difficult part.Other Advice:I would tell those looking for a solution to go back to good old-fashioned tool selection based on analysis criteria. Do the homework properly and have an appropriate set of expectations. Get vendors in and have them demo against your application or specification as opposed to generically. Do the CBA appropriately and be wary of open-source tools from the point of view of maintenance and support. But, at the same time, don’t pass over on those, but embrace them. Look for a solution that would allow them to exist in a sometimes chaotic and potentially ever-changing landscape from a technology point of view or architecture point of view. Do not to overthink it.Disclaimer: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Date published: 2017-01-02
Rated 4 out of 5 by from With regularly occurring application releases, any QA team member can execute tests (regression suites) stored in ALM/Quality Center, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results. In my ten years of hands-on combined experience using QTP (QuickTest Professional), for at least 8 years, and UFT (Unified Functional Testing), for at least 2 years, I have observed that there has been a lot of confusion among the testing community on what the difference is between the two tools. Therefore, I thought it would be beneficial to clarify what distinguishes UFT from QTP because it is important for the reader to know.QTP is a functional and regression automation tool originally developed and marketed by Mercury Interactive which HP acquired in 2006. In 2012, HP released UFT (Unified Functional Testing) version 11.5. HP UFT 11.5 combined QuickTest Professional and HP Service Test into a single software package along with newly designed IDE (Integrated Development Environment).Before UFT, QTP and Service Test were two separate downloads. So essentially, UFT has bundled QTP and Service Test into one package along with several other add-ins. It is also important to note that on February 28, 2015 End of Support Life for QTP 11 was reached which meant that a company had to upgrade to UFT to get technical support and access to patches, documentation, etc.For clarity, I have pasted screenshots of QTP (Figure 1) and UFT (Figure 2) below.Figure 1 – QTP 11.xxFigure 2 – UFT 12.xxFirst, UFT 12.02 has the ability to interact with various applications including Web IE8, IE9, IE10, IE11, Google Chrome (versions 31 and higher), Firefox, Terminal Emulator Screens, Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes), and the built-in functionality to import an Excel input file.Note, UFT came out with a feature called InsightObject that has the ability to identify any object by taking an image of the object. Furthermore, by using the GetVisibleText the user has the ability to get the text off of the InsightObject even though it is essentially an image.Please refer to the following screen shots for details of InsightObject.InsightObject Select learn mode feature shown aboveAfter selecting the object that you want to add to the Object Repository, notice how the perimeter surrounds it.How theInsightObject appears after being added to the Object Repository.UFT is on top of the AUT (Application Under Test). Notice the small image in the code of UFT that represents lower left image with text "70 microns."The actual VBScript Code is pasted below. Note how after the code was executed the text "70 microns" was extracted from image as shown from Print Log.Browser("Space Images | Circumstellar").InsightObject("InsightObject70_microns").HoverstrGetVisibleText = trim(Browser("Space Images | Circumstellar").InsightObject("InsightObject70_microns").GetVisibleText())print "strGetVisibleText = " & strGetVisibleTextPrint LogstrGetVisibleText = 70 micronsUFT has improved our organization because when we have regularly occurring releases of an application, we can have any QA team member execute a set of tests (i.e. regression suite) stored in ALM/Quality Center, let the tests run unattended and then examine the results after test completion. We are also able to determine if any of the Web page links are broken by using an instance of MSXML2.XmlHttp. We have a script that does this by retrieving all the links on a page and then reporting the Status for each link. For example, if the Status returned is 404 we know that the link is broken.Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis.When considering UFT for your organization, I would first evaluate how large your QA department is and if you will have a business need to automate your functional and regression tests. If your IT Organization can afford it, I would encourage the company to buy both ALM/Quality Center and UFT. The reason being that UFT is very compatible with ALM/Quality Center in several ways. First, the user is able to store the test results in ALM/Quality Center. Second, ALM/QC has a built in scheduler that can launch a suite of regression tests initiated by the user scheduling a particular date/time to run.If your company is going to invest in UFT, I would encourage the company to do their due-diligence in making sure that they hire an Automation Engineer well experienced with the HP tools. This person must be very good at writing VBScript and knowing all of the advanced tips and tricks in getting UFT scripts developed so they will run without stopping unexpectedly. The QA Automation Engineer must be able to write functions from scratch and know the difference between passing a parameter by Value and by Reference.I would also encourage the company to use a Citrix Server for UFT to be installed on. The reason for this is that it is much easier to maintain the Citrix environment with respect to patches, Browser versions, etc., versus every user having to make sure their laptop or PC is up to date with patches. Also, Citrix can have multiple sessions and be accessed remotely.Author’s comments added 6/07/2016: Here are some interesting actual business cases at companies I worked at where automation (i.e. QTP/UFT) has been used to add productivity other than in a QA capacity.1) QTP/UFT can be used to send large volumes of emails to intended customers along with attachments. At a previous company we actually used QTP to automate this process that took an Excel input file with a field for Customer Name, email address, the text verbiage for the body of the email, and an indicator for which specific documents to attach and send using Outlook. We placed the documents in specific directories to be uploaded depending on the indicator in the input file. This automated process was very efficient and time-saving by sending out a large volume of emails with respective attachments with minimal problems. Eventhough at the time QTP was being used, UFT has the same functionality to execute the same process.2) At a previous health care company where I worked, when one of the clinical legacy systems was being decommissioned in place of a newer system, we were able to use an automated script to take the data from the legacy system and enter it into the respective fields of the newer system through the GUI (Graphical User Interface). This entailed downloading the data from the legacy system and importing the data into 12 separate Excel input files and running on multiple computers. This is an example of an unconventional but cost effective use of a QA automation tool.3) At a mortgage company that I worked at where previously a person or persons would have had to manually enter data into several fields while navigating through several screens, we were very successful in fully automating this process including logic and the specific values to enter into specific fields based on the conditions. For example, if one pre-populated field had a certain code, the script would use logic to programmatically enter the corresponding data into other fields. This saved the company time and resources by not having to hire people to enter the data manually. This one automated process saved the department sixty hours per week or 3,000 man hours per year.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2016-10-07
  • y_2017, m_9, d_23, h_19
  • bvseo_bulk, prod_bvrr, vn_bulk_2.0.3
  • cp_1, bvpage1
  • co_hasreviews, tv_0, tr_27
  • loc_en_US, sid_3035384, prod, sort_[SortEntry(order=SUBMISSION_TIME, direction=DESCENDING), SortEntry(order=FEATURED, direction=DESCENDING)]
  • clientName_cdwg
 
Adding to Cart...
9/24/2017 12:52:29 PM
^ Back to Top

Maximum 300 characters
An account manager will email you within one business day to confirm your request.

Your Quote has been submitted

What Happens Next? A confirmation email is on its way. Within one business day, you will be contacted by an Account Manager to finalize your quote.

Error!

Something went wrong.

Please try again later.