No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

ACCELQ vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 22, 2026

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
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
16th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
10th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in API Testing Tools
10th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
12th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (4th), AI Quality Assurance (1st)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in API Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of ACCELQ is 0.8%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.1%, down from 8.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.1%
ACCELQ0.8%
Other91.1%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Rohit Kumar Majji - PeerSpot reviewer
Quality Assurance Engineer at Amazon
Automation has transformed regression cycles and brings QA and non-coding testers together
The best features of ACCELQ are its codeless automation, self-healing, and the fact that it brings web, API, and mobile testing into one platform with good CI/CD integration. The biggest impact for our team is usually self-healing because it cuts down flaky test maintenance and keeps regression runs stable when UI elements change. The CI/CD integration helps by letting you trigger automation as part of the build and release flow, so tests run early, failures are visible faster, and the team gets feedback without manual coordination. To summarize, self-healing has had the biggest impact for us because it reduced maintenance and made our tests more stable, while the CI/CD integration helps a lot in daily work since we can trigger runs from pipeline and get faster feedback to catch issues before release. ACCELQ has positively impacted our organization by making our automation more stable, faster to maintain, and easier to scale across the QA team. It also helped us reduce the flaky tests, improve regression turnaround, and bring manual and automation testers onto the same workflow more effectively. One measurable improvement is that our regression cycle dropped from about five days to eight hours as I mentioned earlier. We also saw a noticeable reduction in flaky test maintenance, which helped the team spend more time on actual test coverage instead of fixing broken scripts. The platform is especially useful for mixed-skill teams because it lets both QA and non-coding users contribute without making the workflow fragmented.
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We used ACCELQ to automate our regression suite for web and API flows, and it actually helped us cut the regression cycle from about five days to around eight hours."
"The platform contributes to faster test release cycles."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"For us, object recording is the most valuable and most used feature."
"UFT One has helped us to reduce testing timelines, going from 15 days to certify a release during our manual testing days to achieving that within five days with automation, while also improving quality, increasing test coverage from 80 percent to over 90 percent, and helping us identify defects earlier."
"My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it integrates well into your environment, is easy to use, easy to maintain, and makes your development efforts more efficient."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files."
"UFT is easy to use for functional testing, so for me it’s very important that it can travel across a large range of technologies."
 

Cons

"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."
"ACCELQ can be improved in a few practical areas. It needs stronger reporting and analytics to help teams get clear visibility into execution trends, failure patterns, and coverage gaps."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"I would like to see them remove the shortcoming of working with .NET applications, as there is not much support provided for automating applications developed on .NET."
"Cost is one area where there is room for improvement."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"Technical support could be improved."
"HP products sometimes have a lot of bugs to fix. You get in trouble sometimes because you want to adhere to some timelines, but then you find that the solution doesn't work."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"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."
"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."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,654 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
32%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with ACCELQ Automate?
ACCELQ can be improved in a few practical areas. It needs stronger reporting and analytics to help teams get clear visibility into execution trends, failure patterns, and coverage gaps. Smoother on...
What is your primary use case for ACCELQ Automate?
My main use case for ACCELQ is for end-to-end test automation for web and API testing, especially for CI/CD regression suites. We used ACCELQ to automate our regression suite for web and API flows,...
What advice do you have for others considering ACCELQ Automate?
I would advise others to start with a clear proof of concept and test ACCELQ against their real workflows, not just as a simple demo. It seems to work best when teams value maintainability, codeles...
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 needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
 

Also Known As

ACCELQ Unified
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

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 ACCELQ vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,654 professionals have used our research since 2012.