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 #7, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.8. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 2.5% mindshare in MTT, compared to OpenText’s 20.5% 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

521 Views
495 Comparison Views

50% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 97 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,018 Views
3,127 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

AWS Device Farm

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and AWS Device Farm are products competing in the software testing efficiency category. OpenText Functional Testing holds an advantage in pricing and customer support, whereas AWS Device Farm's comprehensive feature set often justifies its cost.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing supports scriptless automation and a broad range of technologies, providing comprehensive testing options suitable for diverse business needs. AWS Device Farm offers real device testing and parallel execution, along with integration with AWS services, offering powerful scalability and versatility in device and environment replication.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is noted for its straightforward on-premises deployment, extensive documentation, and customer-centric service, which helps in seamless integration into existing systems. AWS Device Farm benefits from simplified deployment through AWS cloud infrastructure but requires users to be familiar with AWS environments, leveraging AWS's global support structure but with less personalized service.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing offers a competitive setup cost with high ROI due to its efficient processes. AWS Device Farm involves a higher upfront cost due to its cloud-based resources but promises strong ROI when maximizing parallel testing and device utilization. OpenText is cost-effective for traditional setups, while AWS Device Farm’s scalable model can lead to superior returns when effectively utilized.

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

Buyer's Guide

AWS Device Farm vs. OpenText Functional Testing

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 869,566 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

7th

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 (5th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of AWS Device Farm is 2.5%, down from 3.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 20.5%, down from 26.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Mobile App Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	20.5%
AWS Device Farm	2.5%
Other	77.0%

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

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

"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."

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

"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."

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

"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."

"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."

"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."

"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."

"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"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."

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

"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."

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

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

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

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

"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."

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

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

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."

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

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

"The price is reasonable."

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

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

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

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

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

869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

30%

Computer Software Company

14%

Healthcare Company

University

Manufacturing Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

12%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	12
Large Enterprise	71

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?

Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the public repository when using Object Spy and adding objects, as it currently stor...

See all answers

Comparisons

Perfecto vs AWS Device Farm

Compared 52% of the time

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

Compared 48% of the time

More AWS Device Farm Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 25% 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

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Mobile App Testing Tools

September 2025

Download AWS Device Farm product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

September 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

September 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: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

869,566 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.