How much does qtp license cost

We have percent usage of UFT on virtual machines -- All our instances are running on them. This allows us to help the customer access his application under test. The customer can configure the system with permissions and the like.

All these points are, in some cases, not possible on hardware in our company, because of political restrictions, security reasons, et cetera. We are responsible for automation of the regression test cases. We have a standard set of regression test cases, which are comprised of SAP solutions, web-based applications, as well as some Windows-based applications.

We have test cases which cater to each of these solutions individually. In addition, we have test cases to test things from end-to-end. That means the data has to flow from one application to another and it has to be validated. We write reusable pieces of code, which are stitched together to create the end-to-ends.

In SAP, transaction codes are available and they are automated. They are stitched together to form a test case. For example, if a customer places an order on the website, we will get an order number in SAP. We will process that order in SAP to create the delivery with a particular T-code. Once we process that delivery, we will mark it as "good session," which means the order itself will flow out of our warehouse via the transportation.

Once the customer receives it, we have the invoicing process. We automate these individual T-codes, and then stitch them together. In our organization, a developer will develop a piece of code and give it to us. We will test it and tell them about any issues or defects. The way we do that is we automate some piece of their code, whatever the core functionality is, and get ready for the next iteration. That means that when the sprint goes from Sprint 1 to Sprint 2, we make sure that Sprint 1 is not impacted because of new code deployment.

The way we have benefited from UFT is that we are not using manual regression testing. Whatever code we have developed will be enhanced in Sprint 2 , and we keep that piece ready for Sprint 3 regression. Therefore, over a period of time, we will have the flow ready, and we don't have to do manual testing from scratch for every release.

Previously, we were doing manual testing for each sprint, and when we got to an advanced sprint, like Sprint 4 or 5, we would have to stop and test that entire functionality again. UFT has helped us a lot in reducing the manual effort and in passing the savings along to our client.

Regression efforts have been reduced by at least 20 percent, if not more. Initially, we were using UFT 12 or When compared with UFT and manual execution, we have definitely saved a lot of effort, somewhere in the range of 60 to 70 percent when compared with our efforts to manually test. A script which takes around half an hour to execute in automation takes around 3. It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One.

You don't have to learn any scripting. There are many people on my team who have started learning automation. I am still learning many things about UFT One. We haven't faced many issues with UFT One in terms of stability. If your system meets the requirements they indicate, you should not face problems. In a machine where we had less memory, we did have some trouble. Since we upgraded the memory for that machine, we have not faced any memory issues or stability issues with UFT One.

Scalability, for our needs, has worked spectacularly well. There were some issues that we were facing with some of the patches. They were taken under consideration by Micro Focus and we got proper updates from the team. When we want to increase the number of people in a team, because our licenses are limited, we sometimes face an issue, but that is not their problem because we have chosen limited licenses.

We sometimes find it difficult to get people onboarded when we have a lot of work and that sometimes hinders the work. With an open source tool, you don't have any such problem. If you have a lot of work and you want to onboard more people you get it done. But it is good to see a lot of changes and we are trying to utilize them in our upcoming releases and projects. Support is okay. We have not faced many problems. But if we do face some issue, we can definitely raise a ticket and the ticket is looked into.

I don't have any complaints about customer support. I would rate it about an eight out of It's not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution.

Tosca is basically scriptless automation which is also good. UiPath is not technically for regression testing, it's an RPA tool. You don't have validations, per se; you have to create them. From my experience, UFT One is good in terms of automation of multiple applications.

For example, if you have five applications and any one of them is not suitable for automation by UFT One, you may have to re-think using it. We don't have much continuous testing in our process because we don't do Agile testing, but we do have some amount of testing for what we call "rapids," for defects or announcements. It is useful when it comes to the second or third sprints where there are use cases in which we can leverage speeding up the testing.

But we haven't used UFT One for a continuous delivery, as in from build to deployment. There are several new features which we can explore and use for continuous testing, but our project, not being Agile right now, has limitations in that regard. Management is looking to convert it into an Agile project soon and I expect we will start using UFT One full-fledged, with all its features. During my initial days, I have used UFT extensively to automate test cases.

Now, with the latest version of Micro Focus UFT One , there are added features, which addresses the new-age testing requirements. In my current position as Practice Head of Test Automation competency at a Tier 1 company, we propose various befitting tools to our existing or new customers.

Whenever we work on a particular solution or requirement, we propose automation tools to support the entire environment to support for an end to end automation. If my customer is looking for an automation solution, they will typically ask, "Can you provide a solution to automate my end-to-end scenario? The primary reason behind this is that a customer may have different systems, for e. In such an ecosystem, UFT One is the right fit to automate end-to-end systems.

Scripting is a basic feature of UFT One. The point is that VBScript is very easy to understand with minimal knowledge. It can easily be modified as per requirement. UFT One all the technologies including a legacy to modern technologies. We were able to easily establish that integration, which means the solution's integration capability with third-party tools is s.

There is a keyword view available in UFT One. Using that keyword view, you can see all the statements in proper order. If I have data in an Excel file, then it is very easy to create an object in either Notepad, file system object, or database object. We can easily retrace the data. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options.

If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. For example, suppose, if earlier there was a button in the left corner, which now has moved to the right corner. In such a situation, we would need to update the script. However, with AI, there is no need to update the script.

Within the screen, if that particular button is placed anywhere on the screen, then we can easily handle it and the script will not fail. The integration part is very easy for mobile automation, as well.

For example, one of our customers prepared a lot of macros in an Excel file and created their own custom options in the toolbar. Their requirement was to automate the Excel file, but not read the data, so we had to handle the different icons in the Excel file.

Therefore, it generated the pivot table, selecting different options in the pivot table and validating some third-party applications. From a sales pitch perspective, everyone is now looking for scriptless automation, whether they are using the feature or not. So, if UFT One is made as a scriptless tool entirely, that would be very good. UFT also has a recording feature.

They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel or have it automatically show on the side once the recording starts. We have been using the solution for 13 to 14 years. It is easily scalable. It supports increases in automation as well as integrates with third-party tools, like ALM Octane and Jenkins.

Micro Focus technical support is prompt. They will try to get you a proper solution to your inquiry. Deployment time takes three to four minutes, though it depends on the RAM and performance of the processor. However, if you install MS Office, that will definitely take some time. Our customers are always looking to reduce their efforts.

This solution will give you such an advantage. Depending on the landscape and stability of the customer application, they should see ROI or the breakeven point within six to nine iterations.

The license is important. If the license is up and running when you open it, there won't be any issues. Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very cheap. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive.

There are a lot of tools available in the market, however, the primary advantageous feature identified in UFT One is simple: It supports legacy to modern technologies. Everybody is aware of mainframe systems because of Y2K. This solution supports a lot of terminal emulators that communicate and connect to mainframe systems. That is one of its key advantages. Some automation tools provide only a fewer number of terminal emulators, but UFT One supports a lot of terminal emulators to communicate with mainframes.

We've got so many applications within Dominion Energy, but as of now, most groups are scripting the test cases themselves, even though they're not programmers and they don't have a true understanding of Visual Basic, which is a language used to script QTP. So the groups out there are doing it independently. I think they're doing mostly a record and playback, data-driven approach, which means they parametrize the data.

But they're not specifically programmers, they can't make those scripts very sophisticated. And that's what I'm seeing. So it was my suggestion that we develop a framework for them in Selenium. Until we move over to a framework where they don't have to spend so much time in creating data-driven scripts that become obsolete once a new version of the application becomes available.

So we're not there yet. We're not using the web services testing piece. They should, but I think they're using other open source tools such as Postmaster. But they're using QTP strictly for scripting automation test cases. In terms of what could be improved, they need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. The company can afford it, but we're going to try to promote Selenium as the open source automation tool. All of these automation tools are a tad finicky.

And it's not the tool, it's that the browser that they're opening may freeze up when it's time to do something on an application. I haven't looked at Selenium yet. I'm going to get some exposure to it later in the year or next year. But that's the tool that I'm going to focus on and replace QTP with. Because Selenium is free of charge and it's the standard in large corporations these days.

As for what should be included in the next release, I don't know much about that because I haven't used QTP in a while. I don't know how much better Selenium is than QTP except for the fact that it's open source. But now I'm promoting it.

I'm also promoting Selenium as an open source solution for future automation testing because the company can set up that framework and everybody can use it. And I'm having a meeting with the users next week on that.

So we're going to be promoting Selenium over UFT. I think it's a stable product because it's been around for well over 14, 15 years now. You can use one license per seat or per user who's automating it. So it doesn't need to scale, it works well enough with one single license per user. It's not meant for more than two users using the same license anyway. Mostly developers use this product.

They have a development background in Visual Basic and the use of the tool. With my current client, it's the business analysts that are doing the automation using this tool and it's not being used effectively. You have to have some form of development background, especially in Visual Basic.

They're okay with it. They get a response within 24 hours. The other product that's taken over the marketplace is Selenium because it is open source, free of charge. My advice to anyone regarding this solution is that if they have the money to purchase it, they could, but Selenium would be the first choice because it's more widely used.

UFT quite expensive. Whereas with Selenium, it's free of charge and you get all the support you need on the internet. On a scale of one to ten, I would give Micro Focus UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people.

Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis. Whereas with Selenium, because it's open source, you're relying on the community to give you that technical support if you have issues and if you can't resolve them, there is really nobody to give you a patch or anything. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or I don't see that being an issue.

I am a consultant in my organization and one of the tasks that I perform is to assist other users with technical issues. I want to experiment with them and find out how it all works so that we can take that information to our customers. The fact that UFT One covers multiple technologies helps in terms of end-to-end scenarios. When we have process flows, workflows, or scenarios that span multiple technologies, we don't have to branch out and use multiple tools.

This is very helpful. The continuous testing across the software lifecycle is good. When we have done continuous testing, we connect to remote machines and execute the tool. The only problem that we encountered was that when the system is not visible, or not logged in, then there were some issues.

However, it has been several months since we tried this. We have not really put the AI capabilities into practice yet because it is currently only applicable for web-based applications. Our customers have pre-existing tools that already perform this work. In general, UFT has helped to reduce our test execution time. In particular, with our non-web ecosystem, the execution time has been reduced considerably.

At this point, UFT has not helped us to decrease defects because we are not creating new test cases. Rather, we are automating test cases with it. It might be the case for regression testing, as regression defects are much higher. I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications.

For browser applications, we have a good number of non-commercial alternatives. NET, this solution works pretty well. The UFT automated manual process has helped to increase our test coverage. Not every one of the tools is applicable but there are some provisions in the latest version that can increase the testing coverage. We perform some of our tests in virtual machines and UFT gives us control over the machine configuration, such as allocating specific resources.

That said, we have our virtual machines configured by another team before they are provided to us, so we don't have UFT control them. The AI functionality has a lot of room for improvement, as it has just started. For example, when a particular object is found, you have to scroll down, rather than have it done automatically. The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well.

More generally, I have used UFT for approximately 12 years. The stability is pretty good with respect to the traditional functionality, which has been existing for years. Some of the new features might not be as stable. In particular, there is a little bit of instability with the AI features that I have observed. I think that this is acceptable given that it is new. As for extending the execution of tests to other machines, you have to install UFT on every machine and get it started, which may not be very scalable.

However, it is scalable in terms of generally extending coverage to other applications. Essentially, once you start automating an application, you can continue to build on that as new requirements or scenarios come in. I have not personally dealt with customer support, although when I was helping one of our customer teams, there was a problem that I could not resolve and I asked them to raise a ticket.

Unfortunately, the issue was not resolved. I was told that the answer from the Micro Focus support team was not helpful. I have interacted with the Micro Focus design team, giving my input as to how AI is important. I was told that it's going to be available in upcoming releases. I have used other tools including Tricentis Tosca, and I find that one, in particular, to be better for testing web-based applications.

Tricentis Tosca is nice because it is a scriptless tool, you don't need to know scripting in order to get it to work. It is more UI-based and a new person can usually do well with it, and there is not much of a learning curve. This is in contrast to UFT One, where you need to know the scripting language in order to automate tests. I assist our clients in setting up their operations, such as helping to identify objects or setting up the scripting.

However, I do not help with the actual deployment. However, there are now some plugins that are available. My advice for others who are considering this product is that they are looking to automate non-web applications, then it is a good choice. For web-based applications, I would recommend another tool, such as Tricentis Tosca. We are working with a desktop-based application and we use the solution to automate testing of the application. UFT One has helped us to reduce testing timelines.

Earlier, during our manual testing days, it would take 15 days to certify a release, but with UFT One and automation, we are able to achieve that within five days.

That's how important it is. It also improves the quality of our testing. In addition, it helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures.

It helps us to provide early feedback. There are a few limitations when it comes to automating desktop-based application testing. You need a medium to run the test cases. We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work.

We have other apps which help us to integrate all the tests into a dashboard. So one area for improvement would be to allow us to run that test suite. Scalability isn't really applicable to us because we have 10 virtual machines and UFT is installed in all of them. Jenkins is what takes care of the scalability, based on the workload.

It allocates the jobs to any number of servers that are available. I don't know how many people are using UFT One in our company, but on our team we have 15 people working with it. They are testers and automation engineers. Plans to increase usage depend on the new initiatives that are coming up. For about a year and a half we have been using UFT on 15 virtual machines, to its full potential.

There are plans to increase its usage, because there are new projects coming up and we intend to deploy UFT on them. If there are issues, when we reach out to the support team, they are able to assist us.

It may be something like we were running an older version and there was a new deployment that created this kind of issue. But the support team is always able to assist us. I would rate their technical support at nine out of 10 or even a We didn't have a previous solution. We were looking for a solution where, once the elements of the object repository are created they stay there. Also, when there are changes to the application, how quickly would it be able to transition as a result?

We were mainly looking for object identification and consistency of the tool. There aren't many tools on the market for automating desktop application testing, but one of them is Micro Focus UFT. We tried UFT and it seemed to be suitable, so we started using it for automation testing. It suited our requirements for desktop application testing. Everyone has their own requirements, but based on my experience with UFT, I have found it to be very consistent.

If anyone is looking to automate web-based or mobile-based applications, UFT is very good. My advice would be to try it and explore UFT a lot.

Using it, we have learned how to design our framework and how to adapt it to improve our test suite. We have learned how to write effective test cases and how to improve the usability of the functions that we add. AI is kind of exciting but, at the same time, it's not available for desktop-based applications yet. So we are waiting to make use of AI. In general, AI helps to reduce testing time.

It increases the amount of reusability and it also makes the tester's life easier by asking them to identify the objects and differentiate them. In addition, it helps to identify any elements that could be missed by the human eye. Those are the features that we think will be helpful for us, once they are available for desktop application testing. Sign In. Post Review. Pricing Advice. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive.

For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average. Filter by:. Filter Reviews. Analyst Firm. Cloud Provider. Comms Service Provider. Computer Retailer. Construction Company. Consumer Goods Company. Engineering Company. Financial Services Firm. Healthcare Company. Hospitality Company. Import And Exporter. Insurance Company. International Affairs Institute.

Educational Organization. Legal Firm. Local Government. Logistics Company. Manufacturing Company. Maritime Company.

Marketing Services Firm. Media Company. Mining And Metals Company. Non Tech Company. Museum Or Institution. Music Company. Non Profit. Outsourcing Company. Paper And Forest Products.

Performing Arts. Photography Company. Political Organization. Printing Company. Program Development Consultancy. Religious Institution. Security Firm. Computer Software Company. Sports Company. Tech Company. Tech Consulting Company. Tech Services Company. Tech Vendor. Think Tank. Translation And Localization Position. Transportation Company. Wireless Company. Writing And Editing Position. Company Size. Self Employed. Job Level.

C Level. Senior Manager. Selenium HQ. SmartBear TestComplete. Tricentis Tosca. Eggplant Automation Cloud. Taking one more example, we can buy 6 concurrent QTP licenses for a team of 11 people.

Then at a time only 6 people can work with QTP and not the complete team. The concurrent license is installed on a computer and its IP address is used by the computers who want to work with QTP.

It may happen that because of some network issues, the computer with a QTP concurrent license is not able to get connected to the main license server. In that case you may request your administrator to install a commuter license on it.

Commuter license is actually a type of concurrent license, which acts similar to a seat license for a particular period of time. He is M. Honours and is a part of the STG team since inception.

See author's posts. I am new in Software Testing field. I would like to learn more about Automation Testing. Also, can anyone please tell me what are the challenges in Automation testing? Should we automate the manual testing work or not? How much automation should be done? Do we have sufficient time for automating the test cases?

Do we have sufficient and skilled resources for doing automation. Which automation tool to choose out of many available automation tools. Can anyone please share how to implement this in QTP? QTP license Cost 6 lacs. Guys, You don't you reply if you know the authentic price with the correct source of info may be like a link from HP site. Also please mention the amount in correct currency,this is not group that has only Indian users.

Santiago, None of these price seems to be correct,and the price depends on the type of license ,number of users. I am not sure how good you are at QTP,but this is not a tool that is cheap,this is the costliest automation tool. Approximately it is around 8K dollars. Manish Bhalshankar. Its almost 3 lkh per license. I agree with this. This is what I remember from my manager. Plus, one of the videos here mentions it www.

I heard it on one of the videos here www. Kishor Kumar. Where r u located. How is the price for seat license. Akhalesh Yadav. Carlos A Loya. Laurindo De Andrade. I need id support for a QTP 11 product that my company has licensed. The product is , but now it must be resumed and I want to install the appropriate patches to run the tests that we have in Chrome.