198

HPE Unified Functional Testing - license

Mfg. Part: TF008AAE | CDW Part: 2543285 | UNSPSC: 43232402
Request Pricing
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:1-3 days
Orders placed today will ship within 3 days
  • License
  • 1 concurrent user
  • electronic
  • English
View More
Product Overview
Main Features
  • License
  • 1 concurrent user
  • electronic
  • English
Now you can automate the functional testing of transactions that span multiple application layers, cutting the cost and complexity of the testing process while improving application quality.

HP Unified Functional Testing is a single solution that addresses each of these challenges. It is more than another step in the evolution of testing. It is a leap forward in testing modern applications, and it can dramatically improve development productivity and collaboration, cut the cost and complexity of testing, and helps improve application quality.

Technical Specifications
Specifications are provided by the manufacturer. Refer to the manufacturer for an explanation of the print speed and other ratings.
Software
Distribution Media: Electronic
License Category: License
License Qty: 1 concurrent user
License Type: License

Header
Brand: HPE
Compatibility: PC
Localization: English
Manufacturer: HP Software
Packaged Quantity: 1
Product Line: HPE Unified Functional Testing

General
Category: Development tools
Subcategory: Development tools - utilities / components & libraries

Product Reviews
Rated 3.6 out of 5 by 20reviewers.
Rated 4 out of 5 by 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. October 7, 2016
Rated 4 out of 5 by Bulk-object capture automatically builds data tables in order. Valuable Features:* Object recognition* Bulk-object capture: automatically builds data tables in order* VBScript & C# & Java* Industry- and market-leading functional test toolImprovements to My Organization:It has reduced time-to-market regression from 160+ hours to 12 hours.Room for Improvement:I’d like to see them improve the number of objects recognized without customization, similar to TestComplete by SmartBear. Simply put: It would save test development time, which would reduce time-to-market.Use of Solution:I have used it for eight years.Deployment Issues:I did not encounter any deployment issues.Stability Issues:I did not encounter any stability issues.Scalability Issues:I did not encounter any scalability issues when it was properly integrated with remote execution controls.Customer Service:I rate customer service 9/10.Technical Support:I rate technical support 9/10.Previous Solutions:We previously used WinRunner and switched due to ease of implementation.Initial Setup:Setup was easy and straightforward.Implementation Team:An in-house team implemented it.Cost and Licensing Advice:Have a look at the HP UFT pricing model; it’s changed.Other Solutions Considered:We also evaluated Smart Bear’s TestComplete.Other Advice:It is a great alternative, and has outstanding object recognition & functionality.License cost, ease of implementation, expandability, extensibility, reusability, availability of useful code and knowledge are some of the reasons to consider switching.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions. September 22, 2016
Rated 3 out of 5 by 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. July 7, 2016
Rated 4 out of 5 by 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. June 8, 2016
Rated 3 out of 5 by We're able to automate both Windows and web applications form a single console. The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#. Valuable Features:The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP). Also the feature for automating both Windows and web applications form a single console is not bad.Improvements to My Organization:My previous organization used UFT extensively for automation more than 500 complex end to end regression tests with considerable savings in time and effort. We were able to achieve that with high degree of reusability.Room for Improvement:The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script. Also, the dependency of browser windows to be opened on screen in order for the tool to recognize objects is a big deal breaker since most organizations mandate screen locking when leaving the systems unattended. If we can’t leave a test to run attended, the point of automation in itself becomes a question-mark.Use of Solution:I've been using it for more than 10 years.Deployment Issues:There were no issues with the deployment.Stability Issues:We did have a few instances of browser crashing as well as the product crashing. While the product crashing was resolved with 4 GB of memory, the issue with browser crashing still happened with IE 11 and 12 browsers and no resolution was found.Scalability Issues:UFT is pretty late to support latest versions of IE. Also I have seen a marked decrease in execution speed while the scripts grow.Technical Support:I have not interacted directly with HP on the product support.Initial Setup:UFT setup is pretty straightforward.Implementation Team:We did it in-house.Cost and Licensing Advice:It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly.Other Solutions Considered:No other options were looked as we went straight ahead into UFT.Other Advice:Go for the cheaper option of Selenium if your requirement is purely browser based testing. If not, go for UFT.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions. May 22, 2016
Rated 4 out of 5 by I was able to reduce regression and functional test times by 80%, but creating a framework that can be reused across other tests is complex and time consuming. Valuable Features:It allows me to perform all in one place--* Regression tests (tests which check that the existing functionality of an application still works as it should after other parts of the application have been modified),* Functional tests (to verify a specific action or function of code), and* Service testing (automated testing protocol)Improvements to My Organization:I was able to reduce regression and functional test times by 80%.Room for Improvement:It could be improved with greater browser compatibility and more frequent updates.Also, running a simple test is straightforward, but creating a framework that can be reused across other tests is complex and time consuming.Use of Solution:I've used it for three to four years.Deployment Issues:I didn't encounter any issues with deployment.Stability Issues:When debugging code in UFT, it would crash, freeze and hang a lot.Scalability Issues:We had no issues with scalability.Customer Service:6/10Technical Support:8/10Previous Solutions:We previously used Selenium Webdriver.Implementation Team:We implemented it with our in-house team.Cost and Licensing Advice:HP UFT cost a lot and there are other free tools that can do the same and much more.Other Solutions Considered:I joined the company after the decision was made to use HP UFT.Other Advice:If cost is not an issue, then UFT can be considered. There are other tools on the market that can do the same for less.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions. April 29, 2016
Rated 4 out of 5 by It allows us to use one set of tests for all systems. Valuable Features:We have multiple SAP systems and clients. UFT allows us to use one set of tests for all systems.Improvements to My Organization:We are a worldwide organization with a complex financial authorization matrix. When changes were made to this matrix, we provided automated test scripts. More than 20,000 tests were executed in 1 week.Room for Improvement:The current version is sufficient for our purposes at the moment. There were, however, some issues with deployment and the integration into Solution Manager.Use of Solution:We've been using it for three years. Our primary system is SAP and we use UFT through SAP Solution Manager as a third-party testing tool.Deployment Issues:Again, we had issues with deployment and the integration into Solution Manager. These are mostly resolved and the current situation is stable.Stability Issues:There were no issues with the stability.Scalability Issues:There were no issues with the scalability.Technical Support:We do not have a direct support contract with HP. Our license is through SAP. Customer support is 10/10 for HP and 8/10 for SAP, but improving.Previous Solutions:This is my first involvement with automated testing software.Initial Setup:The initial set up was straightforward once we cleared up some communication issues. The first end-to-end automated test was functional within a week.Implementation Team:We implemented it through a SAP team, but now manage all maintenance and upgrades internally.Cost and Licensing Advice:The license for this product is provided through our support contract with SAP. Any other product would incur additional license costs.Other Advice:My only experience is with the product fully integrated with SAP. We are not licensed to use this as a standalone product we must connect to SAP.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.Our relationship is via SAP, of whom we are partners. February 2, 2016
Rated 4 out of 5 by It's the only automation technology that our core application, which is a bit special and resistant to automation, supports. Valuable Features:The core application that we're using in our company is a bit special and resistant to automation. To properly to automate, it needs a plug-in from the software's vendor. The only technology for automation that is supported is UFT, so we're sort of locked into UFT for our core application.Improvements to My Organization:UFT is the only technology that enabled us to actually automate our core application.Room for Improvement:It's fine, but we've had to do workarounds for some things.Deployment Issues:We've had no issues with deployment.Stability Issues:For us, we started with version 9 of UFT when it was called QTP, QuickTest Pro. For us it worked, though, like the average software, there are issues, but we always had a good ability to provide work arounds. Regardless, it's been pretty stable.Scalability Issues:We've had no issues with scalability.Technical Support:We haven't needed much technical support as we can sort it out ourselves.Initial Setup:Some parts of it were pretty easy to set up. Most of the issues we had were related to organizational stuff, such as managing licenses, etc.Other Advice:Make sure you take a good look at your approach, such as whether it's keyword driven automation, etc. Make sure you organize things that you're headed in the right direction because once you implement in a certain way, changing direction may be pretty hard. Determine also how you deal with object repositories, how you deal with sharing information, and how important the reusability of scripts is in your project.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions. December 30, 2015
  • 2016-10-30 T09:13:46.570-05:00
  • bvseo_lps, prod_bvrr, vn_prr_5.6
  • cp-1, bvpage1
  • co_hasreviews, tv_20, tr_20
  • loc_en_US, sid_2543285, prod, sort_default
2 3next>>
 
Adding to Cart...
12/8/2016 10:04:27 AM
^ 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.

License Selector

    The license selector is not currently available. Please try again later.