Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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

Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
19th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (3rd)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (4th), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Digital.ai Continuous Testing is 4.8%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 16.6%, 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
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing16.6%
Digital.ai Continuous Testing4.8%
Other78.6%
Mobile App Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Alan Chiou - PeerSpot reviewer
PM at Galaxy Software Services
Has Mobile Studio feature which can generate scripts
The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I submit a ticket to technical support, but they often have to fix it in the next version.
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

"The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
"The most useful feature for me is Mobile Studio. It has a UI where I can click on elements, and it generates a script for me. Mobile Studio can generate code from testing steps. I'm using Python with it."
"Experitest is one of the only companies to offer a real device on the cloud to perform testing. They also provide quality documentations that help you navigate and maximize the solution."
"​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."
"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"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."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
 

Cons

"I have been automating tests for many years on many things but not on mobile devices. The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before. I spent the first two weeks just getting it started. It would be good to have some video explanation of how to use it on your devices and get started. Their online documentation is quite good and extensive, but it would be quite good to have some end-to-end examples demonstrated."
"I would also like to see more videos and descriptions that could make installation more efficient."
"The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I submit a ticket to technical support, but they often have to fix it in the next version."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We make monthly payments. The cost is dependent on the number of devices we intend to support."
"It is quite fairly priced, but it really depends on your budget. It is somewhere in the mid-range of products. It is not free and it is not QGP that nearly costs a whole house. You pay for the number of users who require access to execute the tests."
"The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"It's an expensive solution."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"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 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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Retailer
12%
Insurance Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise71
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker.
What needs improvement with Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I...
What is your primary use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
I'm using Digital.ai Continuous Testing to create and test a mobile application. We're developing and testing a mobile app.
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 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.
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...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, American Express, Barclays, China Mobile, Citi, Cisco, McAfee
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.