Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

ACCELQ Automate vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
96
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 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 is 9.5%, down from 10.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

PrabhuKrishnamoorthy - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Badari Mallireddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development
I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…

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."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
 

Cons

"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"[Tech support is] 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."
"The user interface could be improved"
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized."
"It's an expensive solution."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"The pricing fee is good. 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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
857,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Healthcare Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
 

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.
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.
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...
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

FISCHER, optanix, ERICSSON, BenifitMall, QuickPivot, DIGITALFUEL, westcreek
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, UiPath, Katalon Studio and others in Test Automation Tools. Updated: May 2025.
857,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.