AWS Device Farm vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Amazon Web Services (AWS) and OpenText are both solutions in the Mobile App Testing Tools category. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is ranked #4 with an average rating of 7.0, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.8. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 2.1% mindshare in MTT, compared to OpenText’s 23.2% mindshare. Additionally, 50% of Amazon Web Services (AWS) users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

AWS Device Farm

Read 2 AWS Device Farm reviews

741 Views
242 Comparison Views

50% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 96 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

3,462 Views
156 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

AWS Device Farm

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and AWS Device Farm compete in the testing domain. AWS Device Farm seems to have the upper hand with its extensive device coverage and real-time debugging capabilities.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing provides detailed test scripting, robust automation tools, and high-level security ideal for enterprise applications. AWS Device Farm offers a vast selection of real devices for testing, advanced integration with AWS services, and real-time debugging which enhances test reliability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing follows a structured deployment process, supported by established customer assistance. AWS Device Farm features a cloud-based deployment model, reducing initial setup efforts, with on-demand scalability and seamless service integration.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing involves higher upfront costs with a longer ROI, targeting enterprises needing in-house testing. AWS Device Farm's pay-as-you-go model promotes cost efficiency and quicker ROI, appealing to small and medium enterprises with flexible and scalable solutions.

To learn more, read our detailed AWS Device Farm vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

AWS Device Farm vs. OpenText Functional Testing

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 859,129 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

AWS Device Farm

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

4th

Average Rating

6.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (4th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of AWS Device Farm is 2.1%, down from 5.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 23.2%, down from 26.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Mobile App Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

AshishSingh11

Automation Test Lead at Cap Gemini

A stable solution used for malware testing and APM that needs to improve its performance

The setup phase was fine because AWS had given the whole tree structure on their website. So, basically, if we go here and there apart from that tree structure, it does not support it. So they have a very sophisticated tree structure. So that is the only tree structure that we have to follow. Else, there will be problems. I rate the setup process a seven out of ten, with ten being the easiest setup. Since I had to study the solution, it took me a week to properly deploy it. I just followed the instructions given by AWS to deploy the solution. So on their website, whatever the steps they had given, I simply kept on following it.

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

"What I like best about AWS Device Farm is that it offers actual physical devices that let you do more accurate testing because physical devices depict the live testing scenarios much better as opposed to emulated devices. AWS Device Farm is a pretty nice solution. Because it's an AWS service, you can use the CLI to tie in several steps that can create the pipeline, and run it efficiently. AWS Device Farm also gives you monitoring ability, observability, logging, etc., so I'm pretty satisfied with the solution."

"I rate the stability an eight out of ten."

"It is a stable solution."

"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."

"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."

"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."

"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."

"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."

"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."

"The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"It is slow. It is super slow. Performance is an area that can be improved."

"An area for improvement in AWS Device Farm is that it lacks a lot of features that would tie it in with other AWS services. The solution doesn't have great connectivity with other services offered by AWS, for example, AWS Secrets Manager. This should be improved because a lot of times, that missing functionality hampers the quality and engineering standards in terms of deploying the full AWS suite of services. What I'd like to see in the next version of AWS Device Farm is for it to link better, or have some type of enrollment that would tie it in with other AWS services, such as EventBridge, Lambda, Secrets Manager, and any other new service from AWS."

"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."

"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."

"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."

"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."

"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."

"UFT still requires some coding."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"AWS Device Farm is an expensive service overall. You pay per device, and the cost for each device isn't cheap. My company paid for a device slot. It's a yearly subscription for a single device slot, so that's more cost-effective for my company. On a scale of one to five, where one is very expensive and five is very cheap, I'd give AWS Device Farm a two. It's on the more expensive side."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"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 licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

"It's an expensive solution."

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

25%

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

Insurance Company

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

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...

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

Perfecto vs AWS Device Farm

Compared 39% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs AWS Device Farm

Compared 35% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs AWS Device Farm

Compared 26% of the time

More AWS Device Farm Competitors

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

Mobile App Testing Tools

June 2025

Download AWS Device Farm 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

AWS Device Farm is an application testing service that lets you improve the quality of your web and mobile apps by testing them across an extensive range of desktop browsers and real mobile devices; without having to provision and manage any testing infrastructure. The service enables you to run your tests concurrently on multiple desktop browsers or real devices to speed up the execution of your test suite, and generates videos and logs to help you quickly identify issues with your app.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

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

NFL, Etsy, Tableau, Gannett, Miniclip, Allstate, Rainforest, goibibo, mysmartprice, Zillow

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

Buyer's Guide

AWS Device Farm vs. OpenText Functional Testing

June 2025

Free Report: AWS Device Farm vs. OpenText Functional Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Device Farm vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our AWS Device Farm vs. OpenText Functional Testing report.

See our list of best Mobile App Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Mobile App Testing 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.