AutonomIQ TestIQ vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Sauce Labs and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. Sauce Labs is ranked #16 with an average rating of 9.0, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 7.8. Sauce Labs holds a 0.1% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText’s 9.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Sauce Labs users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

AutonomIQ TestIQ

Read 1 AutonomIQ TestIQ review

209 Views
27 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 96 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

6,924 Views
1,139 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

AutonomIQ TestIQ

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and AutonomIQ TestIQ are competing products in the functional testing domain. AutonomIQ TestIQ appears to have a competitive edge with its advanced features and cloud-native approach.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing is valued for its robust integration capabilities, extensive test management features, and broad support options. AutonomIQ TestIQ stands out with AI-driven test automation, seamless cloud integration, and innovative testing solutions enabled by its AI capabilities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing offers flexible installation options with solid customer support. AutonomIQ TestIQ provides easy cloud deployment, reducing setup complexity, and is noted for responsive customer service, offering a smoother deployment experience compared to OpenText's more traditional setup.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is known for its lower initial setup costs and solid return on investment over time. AutonomIQ TestIQ may have higher upfront costs due to its advanced features but promises greater long-term returns through increased testing efficiency and reduced time to market.

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

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 858,945 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

AutonomIQ TestIQ

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

16th

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

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

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 AutonomIQ TestIQ is 0.1%, down from 0.2% 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

Vijay Sawale

Test Associate & Manager at IGT Solutions

A low-code and no-code tool for automation purposes that is very user-friendly

AutonomIQ TestIQ is only available on mobile devices and on the web. I wish to see AutonomIQ TestIQ in a different area, like game automation or game testing. There is no tool or support offered in the market for game testing. The automatic automation should help capture videos, logs, audio, and other steps with which the user plays that particular game if I want to automate any graphical game with the help of a low-code and no-code tool, like AutonomIQ TestIQ. The ability to capture and record with the help of automation is not there in AutonomIQ TestIQ. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement.

Read full review

Badari Mallireddy

QA Automation Architect at Emerson

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…

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

"UI is one of the best features of AutonomIQ TestIQ."

"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."

"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."

"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."

"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."

"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."

"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"The ability to capture and record with the help of automation is not there in AutonomIQ TestIQ."

"We'd like it to have less scripting."

"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."

"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."

"Technical support could be improved."

"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."

"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."

"[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."

"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"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.""

"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."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"It's an expensive solution."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

More OpenText Functional Testing 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

858,945 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Manufacturing Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about AutonomIQ TestIQ?

UI is one of the best features of AutonomIQ TestIQ.

See all answers

What needs improvement with AutonomIQ TestIQ?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for AutonomIQ TestIQ?

AutonomIQ TestIQ is a tool from SoftLab. My company uses the solution since it is a low-code and no-code automation tool. AutonomIQ TestIQ is a tool with which you don't require to use coding and c...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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 ...

See all answers

Comparisons

No data available

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 30% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 12% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

May 2025

Download AutonomIQ TestIQ product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

June 2025

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

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

Overview

Run your automated tests in parallel to improve results velocity by 10x or more and give your development teams the fast feedback they need. Quickly and easily update your existing Selenium and Appium scripts to run on the Sauce Labs Continuous Testing Cloud.

Sauce Labs

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

May 2025

Download Free Report

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

858,945 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.