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

Appium vs Mendix vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Mindshare comparison

Mobile Development Platforms Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Appium3.9%
OutSystems17.5%
Mendix16.7%
Other61.900000000000006%
Mobile Development Platforms
Mobile Development Platforms Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Mendix16.7%
OutSystems17.5%
Salesforce Platform7.8%
Other58.0%
Mobile Development Platforms
Mobile App Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web3.5%
Tricentis Tosca33.1%
OpenText Functional Testing21.1%
Other42.3%
Mobile App Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Luis Gerardo Meneses Hernandez - PeerSpot reviewer
Allows for direct interaction with an application's DOM but complex configuration
What I like about Appium right now is that it's like Cypress in the sense that I can get to the new DOM of the application and select the components and create the functions to test the components in the way I want them to be tested. That's why I like it right now.
Richard Van Den Akker - PeerSpot reviewer
Cloud-based, helps fill gaps and that seamlessly integrates with existing systems
Mendix provides the ability to create solutions that fill gaps that I would otherwise be unable to address with standard software. It integrates seamlessly with my existing ERP systems, enabling me to build attractive and user-specific solutions. Its cloud-based platform supports agile methods and enhances my development speed. These features enable me to better meet my organizational needs.
Robinson Caiado - PeerSpot reviewer
Automates mobile solutions while boosting productivity and fostering innovation
It allows multiple devices to be used and gives flexibility in adding devices when a project is needed. Most of the time, I have several devices where it is predefined. We can use it, but sometimes, we must scale it in a particular situation. It's very flexible. It is very important because we can use a different approach to software testing, for example, to find a way to execute UFT software testing with only one execution. This reproduces all the platforms that we need.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The automation part is extremely helpful in streamlining our processes."
"The best feature of Appium is that it allows you to inspect the element. With the Appium Inspector, you don't have to install another application to do the inspection. I also like that Appium has Android device connectivity. Currently, most people use Appium as automation software, and I haven't found any other tool that's more powerful than Appium."
"The most valuable feature is that it's easy to launch applications. Appium has everything that Selenium has. So many good tools support Appium. We can take some Excel sheets and use them to fill out the text box that's in there. We can also take screenshots of failures."
"The latest versions of the solution are stable."
"What I like about Appium right now is that it's like Cypress in the sense that............. to test the components in the way I want them to be tested."
"The solution helps with test automation. We focus mostly on Java."
"I haven't explored other solutions in this particular area, but what I like best about Appium is the fact that it shares functions with Selenium. The extension of Selenium functions allows me to use all of the methods that exist in that domain, and it just makes it simpler for me. I've been using Selenium for some time as well, so using Appium just seems like a natural fit for me."
"Obviously because of automation, it reduces manual testing efforts."
"What I like best about Mendix is that it's leading the way for low-code, no-code platforms compared to other solutions in the market."
"It is low code, where the developers can still develop in Java. That to us is very appealing."
"The integrated security saves a lot of time, especially when it comes to setting up user-roles and security. Also, database updates work automatically. There is no need to write queries to update the database, once you make an update."
"The most valuable features are the decorative style, model-driven development, and the fact that Mendix validates flows. Mendix is quick to develop because it's a low-code platform. It's very robust, flexible, open, and scalable. It's for a low-code customer. The tooling is also really good and it has mobile capabilities."
"When I often want to pitch Mendix, if there is something out of the box that is not available, I can always extend Mendix. Whether it's the front end or the back end, It can be extended with Java. I've also built many widgets using Mendix."
"We find it intuitive and easy to use."
"Enables us to rapidly create a complex application. We are also able to customize features that stakeholders in the corporation want to see, something that could not be done with other software. Our workflows and processes have evolved and improved. The fast iterations allow us to be nimble, get feedback from users, and do rapid updates."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The product is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."
 

Cons

"One area where I think Appium could improve is in addressing security concerns for our data. Currently, we're unable to use cloud solutions like CloudForm due to security restrictions on our servers. We also face challenges in updating packages for the same reason. It would be beneficial if the solution could provide better support for auto-reporting and easier connections to mobile device farms."
"Configuration-wise, there is a lot of room for improvement."
"The deployment process and configuration are quite complex and require improvement."
"One thing which can be really helpful is that there is some kind of a recorder made available rather than scripting everything."
"We previously worked with native applications, and there weren't any good mobile app testing tools. We started working with React Native, which works well with Appium, but it would be good to see better integration; the way elements are displayed can be messy. React Native is very popular nowadays, so it's essential to have that compatibility."
"I rarely use Appium nowadays because I'm now at the managerial level, but the last time I used it, whenever I selected and clicked on an element, Appium was very slow. I tried to debug it, but I still couldn't find the problem, so this is an area for improvement in the solution. Another area for improvement lies with the connector and server. For example, the effort to get into the local machine sometimes causes the emulator to become slow, which then leads to failure in testing, and this is the usual issue I've encountered from Appium. An additional feature I'd like added to Appium in its next release is being able to do automation in iOS without using XPath and the name of the element. In Xcode, you can use previous UI tests for detecting elements, but in Appium, you have to use Xpath and the element name instead of being able to directly put the X-UiPath, which is what you can do in Xcode. In iOS as well, sometimes the element doesn't have a name or a path. Sometimes, there's also no element."
"Appium could improve by enabling record and run techniques similar to what they have in other licensing tools, such as Micro Focus. We have to all write the code, and then we can proceed."
"The installation part of Appium is somewhat clumsy, requiring numerous dependencies and configurations."
"There should be more integration with engineering applications and tighter integration for user authentication, such as single sign-on, etc. They have some of that. It just could be stronger."
"I would also like to see automatic adjustment to the Java Heap, whenever an application load becomes too much for the application. It could also use hot database replication."
"While the community is great, they need to work on making their direct technical support services better."
"Mendix is quite expensive, and its pricing model makes it inaccessible for startups. The app license costs between $13,000 to $14,000, which is prohibitive for startups."
"The vendor should focus more on the opinion of the users and make improvements"
"Occasionally, there is downtime if an upgrade is happening in the application."
"There's no direct tech support."
"Needs multiple database connections so an app can directly read/write data to/from multiple databases. This would enable easy splitting of big applications that have complex entity relationships."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
"OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web could benefit from implementing a low-code, no-code solution that aids in quick automation code preparation."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."
"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing of Appium is fine."
"The solution is open source."
"Appium is free and open-source."
"We found out that we could explore features of the solution for 30 days trial. We can switch to a permanent license later if we want."
"Appian is open-source, which is not licensed."
"Appium is open source; we can use it for free."
"It's completely 100% free, and there are no hidden fees."
"The solution is open source so it is free."
"Pricing used to be complex, but Mendix has improved that quite a bit."
"Its cost is higher than competitors. The cost mostly includes licensing. It is charged per user. The cost model could be better. When you have a big company, what does per user mean? If I have a company where I have 40,000 people who will go to access it but only 200 do, how do you license it and who do you pay for? If they hit it once, do you pay for it? The licensing is complex for a big company. It is easy for us to buy all we can eat, get an enterprise license agreement, and call it good."
"Initially, we started with a year for approximately $25,000, and if we need to expand the number of seats then we will increase it."
"Mendix licensing cost is based on the number of apps you have on the server. At the basic level, it is free of charge, so that seems reasonable, but once you go beyond that, and when it comes to the number of users on the app, that basic structure doesn't work, and the pricing tends to get a little bit steep."
"Mendix seems a bit expensive. But in terms of wanting to have less developers and higher velocity, the total cost of ownership is fine. It's not cheap, though."
"Licensing costs are similar to those for all other IT technology, but they vary by region."
"Mendix is not open source, but its license cost is cheap, particularly when compared to the Appian license. The license model would depend on how many users you have and how many applications you are creating. If you are creating a single app, you just need to have a single app license, so it's free. If you want a multiple app license to cover two thousand or three thousand users, for example, internal users or external users, then you need to pay for the license. There's also a license model for above three thousand or four thousand, or five thousand internal and external users."
"There is a license required to use Mendix. The solution's price is high, but it is best suited for enterprise companies that have the budget. It is not for small or medium-sized businesses."
"The product could be more affordable."
"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile Development Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
866,561 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Retailer
6%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
University
7%
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Non Profit
10%
Educational Organization
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise19
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business24
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise21
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

Do you recommend Appium?
I do recommend Appium. It is an open-source solution and completely free of charge. We use Appium and Appium Studio a...
What do you like most about Appium?
Appium helps me to do as much as much as I want to.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Appium?
My experience with Appium from a pricing perspective is favorable due to it being open source, making it a cost-effec...
What do you like most about Mendix?
We also use Mendix Enterprise Integration for complex business logic. It's a low-code platform, so we run Mendix in t...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Mendix?
I have some idea about the licensing part, and it depends on the person and the number of applications.
What needs improvement with Mendix?
Currently, I do not see any improvements needed in Mendix. However, I have not used Mendix for the last few months, s...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web could benefit from implementing a low-code, no-code solution that ...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web can be used for a range of applications, not just web and mobile. ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
No data available
Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nuvizz, Coupa Software, Eventbrite, Evernote
Genzyme, TNT, Yahoo, Capgemini, Roche, D&B, Aegon, kpn, AZL, Sky, Arch, Penn State Univeristy, BancABC
Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
Find out what your peers are saying about OutSystems, Salesforce, Mendix and others in Mobile Development Platforms. Updated: August 2025.
866,561 professionals have used our research since 2012.