QTP 10 vs. QTP 9.5

Attribute	QTP 10	QTP 9.5
Version	10	9.5
Supported Technologies	Web, Mobile, Desktop	Web, Mobile, Desktop
Scripting Language	VBScript	VBScript
Object Repository	XML-based	XML-based
Enhanced Object Identification	Yes	Yes
Keyword-Driven Testing	Yes	Yes
Data-Driven Testing	Yes	Yes
Integration with ALM	Yes	Yes
Reporting	Enhanced reporting capabilities	Basic reporting capabilities

Introduction

QTP (QuickTest Professional) is a widely used functional testing tool for automating software applications. It allows testers to create, execute, and manage automated tests for various software applications. Over the years, QTP has evolved with new versions being released to enhance its features and capabilities. In this article, we will compare the attributes of QTP 10 and QTP 9.5, highlighting the improvements and changes introduced in the newer version.

User Interface

One of the noticeable differences between QTP 10 and QTP 9.5 is the user interface. QTP 10 introduced a revamped and more intuitive user interface, making it easier for testers to navigate and perform their tasks. The toolbar and menu options were reorganized, providing a more streamlined experience. Additionally, QTP 10 introduced a new "Keyword View" that allowed testers to view and edit test steps in a tabular format, making it easier to understand and modify test scripts.

In contrast, QTP 9.5 had a more traditional user interface with a menu-driven approach. While it was functional, some users found it less intuitive and more time-consuming to perform certain tasks. The lack of a tabular view for test steps made it harder to visualize and modify test scripts, especially for complex scenarios.

Object Identification

QTP 10 introduced significant improvements in object identification, making it more robust and accurate. It introduced a new "Smart Identification" mechanism that allowed QTP to identify objects even if their properties changed between different runs. This was particularly useful for dynamic web applications where object properties could vary based on user interactions or server responses.

On the other hand, QTP 9.5 relied on a more basic object identification mechanism that primarily relied on static properties. While it worked well for stable applications, it often failed to identify objects accurately in dynamic environments. Testers had to manually update object properties in the Object Repository, leading to increased maintenance efforts.

Web Testing

Both QTP 10 and QTP 9.5 offered robust web testing capabilities, but QTP 10 introduced several enhancements to improve the testing experience. QTP 10 introduced support for AJAX-based applications, allowing testers to automate and validate dynamic web elements that were not possible in QTP 9.5. It also introduced a new "Web 2.0 Add-in" that provided better support for technologies like Flex and Silverlight.

QTP 9.5, on the other hand, had limited support for AJAX-based applications and lacked specific add-ins for newer web technologies. Testers often had to rely on custom coding or workarounds to automate certain web elements, leading to increased complexity and maintenance efforts.

Integration with ALM

Both QTP 10 and QTP 9.5 offered integration with Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) tools, allowing testers to manage their test assets and collaborate with other team members. However, QTP 10 introduced tighter integration with ALM, providing seamless synchronization of test assets, test execution results, and defect tracking.

QTP 9.5 had integration capabilities with ALM tools, but the level of synchronization and collaboration was not as advanced as in QTP 10. Testers had to manually update test results and defects in ALM, leading to potential inconsistencies and increased manual effort.

Scripting and Extensibility

Both QTP 10 and QTP 9.5 supported scripting and extensibility, allowing testers to customize and extend the functionality of the tool. However, QTP 10 introduced support for additional scripting languages like JavaScript, making it more versatile for testers with different scripting preferences.

QTP 9.5 primarily relied on VBScript for scripting, which limited the options for testers who preferred other scripting languages. While VBScript was powerful and widely used, the introduction of JavaScript support in QTP 10 provided more flexibility and options for testers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, QTP 10 introduced several improvements and enhancements over QTP 9.5. The revamped user interface, improved object identification, enhanced web testing capabilities, tighter integration with ALM, and support for additional scripting languages made QTP 10 a more powerful and user-friendly tool for functional testing. While QTP 9.5 was functional and served its purpose, the advancements in QTP 10 made it a preferred choice for testers looking for a more robust and versatile automation tool.