ACCELQ Automate vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

ACCELQ and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. ACCELQ is ranked #15 with an average rating of 9.0, while OpenText is ranked #11 with an average rating of 7.8. ACCELQ holds a 1.3% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText’s 2.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of ACCELQ users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 77% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

ACCELQ Automate

Read 1 ACCELQ Automate review

691 Views
691 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 38 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews

1,901 Views
1,597 Comparison Views

77% willing to recommend

ACCELQ Automate

OpenText Functional Testing...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and ACCELQ Automate compete in the automated testing market. OpenText has the upper hand in robust scripting and integration, while ACCELQ offers superior accessibility with its intuitive design and low-code framework.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers provides powerful automation capabilities, seamless integration with existing platforms, and support for complex environments. ACCELQ Automate offers a low-code approach, intuitive design, and adaptability in various testing scenarios.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: ACCELQ Automate's cloud-based deployment minimizes setup time and includes responsive customer support. OpenText requires more initial configuration but offers extensive resources for assistance.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves higher setup costs but is suited for complex integrations, offering a high return on investment over time. ACCELQ Automate presents a cost-effective setup with attractive ROI due to its streamlined processes and rapid deployment capability.

To learn more, read our detailed Test Automation Tools Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 861,803 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

ACCELQ Automate

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

15th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Functional Testing...

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

11th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (12th)

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of ACCELQ Automate is 1.3%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.5%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Automation Tools

Featured Reviews

PrabhuKrishnamoorthy

Senior Director at Ascendion

Provides good stability and a valuable object identification feature

We evaluated data testing for millions of records. As per architecture, it can efficiently run a few thousands of records. However, we couldn't implement it for millions of records. Thus, it works well for a small amount of data. We have 30 users for it in our organization and use it daily. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

Read full review

Eitan Gold

SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities

OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The platform contributes to faster test release cycles."

"The most valuable feature is stability."

"The solution is very scalable."

"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."

"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."

"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."

"The most valuable features are the object repository."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

Cons

"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."

"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

"In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object."

"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."

"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."

"Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously."

"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."

"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."

"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

861,803 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Manufacturing Company

Healthcare Company

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about ACCELQ Automate?

The platform contributes to faster test release cycles.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ACCELQ Automate?

I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized.

See all answers

What needs improvement with ACCELQ Automate?

The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details. Additionally, there could be a capability to automatically generate automation scripts extracting the user data fr...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object.

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs ACCELQ Automate

Compared 23% of the time

Katalon Studio vs ACCELQ Automate

Compared 19% of the time

Testsigma vs ACCELQ Automate

Compared 18% of the time

LEAPWORK vs ACCELQ Automate

Compared 12% of the time

Eggplant Test vs ACCELQ Automate

Compared 11% of the time

More ACCELQ Automate Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 50% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 14% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

Eggplant Test vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

June 2025

Download ACCELQ Automate product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

June 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

Overview

The most powerful test automation tool for web, desktop, mainframes and more.

ACCELQ

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers robust automation capabilities with support for complex algorithms, multi-platform testing, and developer-friendly integration using C# and Java, facilitating seamless testing transitions and efficient automation workflows.

This testing tool is highly valued for its integration with ALM and Jenkins, along with its developer-focused environment adaptable to Eclipse and Visual Studio. With AI-based object recognition, an object repository, and test framework integration, it bolsters DevOps practices while reducing IT workloads. Supporting UFT to LeanFT transition, it caters to SAP, Java, .NET environments, and more. Enhanced with stable automation, extensive protocol support, and both on-premises and cloud deployments, it targets performance, regression, and functional testing, while recording and screengrabs enhance automation capabilities. Future improvements could include expanded browser compatibility, enhanced JavaScript and mobile support, and better object recognition.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers?

Complex Algorithm Handling: Manages complex scenarios with ease, including fuzzy logic.
Developer-friendly: Enables coding in C# and Java, integrating seamlessly with popular IDEs.
AI-based Object Recognition: Enhances test automation through advanced object identification.
Extensive Protocol Support: Supports a wide range of protocols for diverse testing requirements.
Seamless Integration: Connects effortlessly with ALM and Jenkins, promoting continuous development.

What benefits can users expect when evaluating OpenText Functional Testing?

Efficient Test Automation: Streamlines test processes, optimizing resource allocation and reducing effort.
Multi-platform Flexibility: Facilitates cross-platform testing, accommodating desktop, web, and banking applications.
Reduced IT Workload: Simplifies automation tasks, decreasing the strain on IT resources.
Enhanced DevOps Support: Integrates well with DevOps practices for continuous testing advancements.

Organizations implement OpenText Functional Testing for complex test automation on desktop, web, and banking applications, supporting performance, regression, and functionality testing across environments like SAP, Java, and .NET. UFT aids in GUI, infrastructure, and ERP application automation, with deployment options including on-premises and cloud implementations. Enhanced screengrabs and recording features aid in practical test case development, while addressing emerging technology needs is a focus.

OpenText

Sample Customers

FISCHER, optanix, ERICSSON, BenifitMall, QuickPivot, DIGITALFUEL, westcreek

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

June 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, UiPath, OpenText and others in Test Automation Tools. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

861,803 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Automation Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.