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

AWS Device Farm 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

AWS Device Farm
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
11th
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
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
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of AWS Device Farm is 2.5%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 19.5%, down from 21.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing19.5%
AWS Device Farm2.5%
Other78.0%
Mobile App Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

AshishSingh11 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
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

"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."
"The stop automation is a great feature that is not generally supported by other solutions."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"For the QTP/UFT projects I have worked on ROI is always over 300% in the long term."
"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."
"Supports desktop, web and mobile product automation."
"This tool is awesome for automation even though it is expensive."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"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."
 

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."
"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."
"I would like a version that works quicker. Also, a lot of people can't afford it because it's expensive."
"It looks like User Acceptance Testing of the product is getting bypassed entirely because this design has precedence in UFT."
"Stability can be an issue, and the weaker the resources on the machine running UFT the more likely there will be problems."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"In terms of what could be improved, they need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user and if we're going to spread this throughout the organization, we'll need to spend a whole lot of money."
"Customer service is a big drawback. From my personal experience, after creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody."
"When the number of automation tests are very high, say 5000 to 10000, even with eight to 10 licenses, UFT can take over 24 hours for execution."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
 

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 licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"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 price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The tool's price is high."
"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.""
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Consumer Goods Company
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
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

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

NFL, Etsy, Tableau, Gannett, Miniclip, Allstate, Rainforest, goibibo, mysmartprice, Zillow
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Device Farm vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.