Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
OpenText Functional Testing Logo

OpenText Functional Testing Reviews

Vendor: OpenText
4.0 out of 5
Badge Leader

What is OpenText Functional Testing?

Featured OpenText Functional Testing reviews

OpenText Functional Testing mindshare

As of August 2025, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing in the Functional Testing Tools category stands at 9.2%, down from 9.4% compared to the previous year, according to calculations based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing9.2%
Tricentis Tosca18.9%
BrowserStack10.7%
Other61.2%
Functional Testing Tools

PeerResearch reports based on OpenText Functional Testing reviews

TypeTitleDate
CategoryFunctional Testing ToolsAug 27, 2025Download
ProductReviews, tips, and advice from real usersAug 27, 2025Download
ComparisonOpenText Functional Testing vs Tricentis ToscaAug 27, 2025Download
ComparisonOpenText Functional Testing vs UiPath Test CloudAug 27, 2025Download
ComparisonOpenText Functional Testing vs BrowserStackAug 27, 2025Download
Suggested products
TitleRatingMindshareRecommending
Tricentis Tosca4.118.9%96%112 interviewsAdd to research
Katalon Studio3.9N/A89%47 interviewsAdd to research
 
 
Key learnings from peers

Valuable Features

Room for Improvement

ROI

Pricing

Popular Use Cases

Service and Support

Deployment

Scalability

Stability

Review data by company size

By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business19
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise60
By reviewers
By visitors reading reviews
Company SizeCount
Small Business503
Midsize Enterprise191
Large Enterprise1149
By visitors reading reviews

Top industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
5%
Energy/Utilities Company
5%
Retailer
5%
Healthcare Company
4%
Insurance Company
4%
Educational Organization
3%
Construction Company
3%
Transportation Company
2%
Non Profit
2%
Performing Arts
2%
Consumer Goods Company
2%
Media Company
2%
Real Estate/Law Firm
2%
University
2%
Wholesaler/Distributor
1%
Comms Service Provider
1%
Legal Firm
1%
Outsourcing Company
1%
Pharma/Biotech Company
1%
Engineering Company
1%
Recreational Facilities/Services Company
1%
Hospitality Company
1%
Logistics Company
1%
Renewables & Environment Company
1%

Compare OpenText Functional Testing with alternative products

Learn more about OpenText Functional Testing

OpenText Functional Testing customers

Related questions

 
OpenText Functional Testing Reviews Summary
Author infoRatingReview Summary
QA Automation Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees4.0I use OpenText UFT One for automating web, desktop, and Oracle ERP applications. It offers easy object identification and supports various applications. However, it needs less coding and better support. It's more efficient than Selenium, saving development time.
Engineer at Agilent Technologies, Inc.4.0No summary available
Senior Manager at Deloitte3.5We use OpenText UFT One for archiving from SAP and vendor invoice management. It's the best solution for large customers, providing great ROI in up to three years. However, the user interface could be improved for better usability.
Support Engineer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees4.5I use OpenText UFT One for testing web, desktop, and mobile applications, valuing its object repository and AI capabilities. While it improves the QA process, it could enhance report exports and support behavior-driven development.
QA Lead at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees3.0We migrated tests from OpenText UFT One to SOAtest due to stability issues caused by browser dependency and memory consumption leading to crashes. While UFT One streamlined repetitive tasks, it required VBScript knowledge, which was limiting.
CTO at Marco Technology3.5I use OpenText UFT One for process and test automation due to its versatility and legacy support. However, its high cost, low-code focus, and limited ROI are areas for improvement, though it remains superior in supporting both legacy and modern systems.
Owner at iQST5.0OpenText UFT One's recording feature greatly aids in test script creation and supports a wide range of applications, especially in digitalized banks. However, it needs more AI development, enhanced marketing, and increased visibility to compete effectively with open-source tools.
QA automation Architect Manager at BMO Financial4.0We use OpenText UFT One for automating end-to-end flows in web applications, incorporating backend and UI validations. Its support for multiple technologies and ease of coding are valuable, though its performance could be improved as it sometimes becomes heavy.