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

Appvance AIQ Platform vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 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

Appvance AIQ Platform
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
34th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
16th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
31st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (51st), Performance Testing Tools (17th), Load Testing Tools (23rd), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (7th)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Appvance AIQ Platform is 1.3%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.8%, down from 9.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.8%
Appvance AIQ Platform1.3%
Other90.9%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

it_user129477 - PeerSpot reviewer
Performance Tester/QA at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Network Emulation allows for performance testing of geographically-distributed users.
It is a great performance testing tool. The most valuable feature of the tool is its Avatar technology. Scripting is really fast, compared to other tools. It works for almost all major protocols, platforms and browsers. It makes complex scenarios simple, and we need minimal custom coding. It also provides features for Network Emulation, which is quite helpful in testing the performance for geographically-distributed users. Appvance can provide information from end to end (back-end and front-end), which makes it surpass other tools. The tool provides protocol level as well as browser level response time. And it can be integrated with major monitoring tools. As it is a web-based tool, it makes it easy to access anywhere anytime. All the team members can access the common information easily.
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

"It is a great performance testing tool."
"It has definitely cut down on a lot of time by using this application, as running our ten environments manually would have taken most of the day rather than doing them simultaneously, which saves me hours."
"UFT is the only technology that enabled us to actually automate our core application."
"It helps us consolidate our efforts."
"I support UFT as the best solution due to the skill set needed to operate the tool."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."
"The process has helped my organization greatly reduce time and cost when it comes to testing a new project."
"Supports desktop, web and mobile product automation."
 

Cons

"Reporting features can be improved to provide more flexibility, collation, exporting in different formats, etc."
"Sometimes you need a little bit more, but then HP help us to find it as they're knowledgeable troubleshooters."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"When a debug session ends, UFT forces the user back to the main script. 90% of code development and issues occur in function libraries."
"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."
"The solution is expensive."
"I would not recommend this solution to others who are considering it."
"The solution is 70-80% stable. Stability really depends on the servers or the license which we have installed."
"It looks like User Acceptance Testing of the product is getting bypassed entirely because this design has precedence in UFT."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"The price is reasonable."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"The tool's price is high."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Computer Software Company
10%
Healthcare Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
5%
 

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

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

Appvance
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cisco, Bell Canada, CBS, UBC, PepsiCo, 7-11, BenefitVision, Kabbage, Catalent Pharmaceuticals, McKesson, Veritas, Cherwell, QAT Global, Sony, SiriusXM, CoPart, Auto Parts Alliance, PPD
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, OpenText and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: July 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.