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 3.4% mindshare in MTT, compared to OpenText’s 16.6% 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

519 Views
472 Comparison Views

50% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,452 Views
2,958 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

AWS Device Farm

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

OpenText Functional Testing and AWS Device Farm compete in software testing. AWS Device Farm is often seen as having the upper hand due to its advanced scalable features and extensive compatibility.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing provides automation capabilities, supports a wide range of enterprise applications, and offers detailed functional testing, making it ideal for large organizations. AWS Device Farm offers extensive real-device testing, integration with AWS services, and flexible, on-demand testing across multiple platforms. Its distinction lies in its broad compatibility and cloud-based infrastructure.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText offers a comprehensive deployment model with strong support for enterprise environments prioritizing robust on-premise solutions. AWS Device Farm provides a streamlined, cloud-based deployment model, facilitated by AWS's cloud infrastructure and extensive support network, appealing to cloud-savvy teams seeking rapid deployment with minimal infrastructure management.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing incurs higher setup costs but promises a substantial return on investment through its detailed capabilities and enterprise-grade functionalities. AWS Device Farm offers a flexible pricing model with scalable testing services, ensuring cost efficiency and high ROI for diverse, frequent testing needs. AWS attracts smaller teams and startups due to lower initial investment, while OpenText is suited for larger enterprises prioritizing comprehensive, long-term investment.

To learn more, read our detailed AWS Device Farm vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

AWS Device Farm vs. OpenText Functional Testing

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 885,311 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

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (4th), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of AWS Device Farm is 3.4%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 16.6%, down from 25.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Mobile App Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	16.6%
AWS Device Farm	3.4%
Other	80.0%

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

Kevin Copple

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.

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."

"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."

"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."

"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."

"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."

"UFT provides Business Process Testing from within UFT, using the native UFT user interface."

"Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One."

"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."

"I support UFT as the best solution due to the skill set needed to operate the tool."

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."

"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."

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."

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

"It often crashes."

"[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."

"The amount of space it utilizes on the client side is quite excessive."

"When debugging code in UFT, it would crash, freeze and hang a lot."

"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."

"The user interface could be improved"

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."

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

"The tool's price is high."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

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

"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."

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

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

885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

16%

Outsourcing Company

12%

Consumer Goods Company

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Computer Software Company

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
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 needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Perfecto vs AWS Device Farm

Compared 17% of the time

Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs AWS Device Farm

Compared 16% of the time

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

Compared 15% of the time

Eggplant Test vs AWS Device Farm

Compared 15% of the time

Kobiton Mobile Device Testing vs AWS Device Farm

Compared 13% of the time

More AWS Device Farm Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 17% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Mobile App Testing Tools

March 2026

Download AWS Device Farm product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

March 2026

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

March 2026

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: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

885,311 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.