

OpenText Functional Testing and Eggplant Test compete in the software testing category. OpenText has the upper hand due to its robust integration with development environments like Eclipse and Visual Studio, appealing to developer-centric teams.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing excels in handling complex algorithms, making it ideal for specialized fields. It supports containerization and continuous integration processes, blending well with DevOps practices. Its compatibility with prominent development environments like Eclipse and Visual Studio is a key strength. Eggplant Test is known for its image recognition capabilities and user-friendly SenseTalk scripting language, which is independent of the system architecture. Its Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is a standout feature, providing versatility across various testing scenarios.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing needs better integration with open-source technologies and enhanced stability and performance. Users desire improved compatibility with other UFT functionalities. Eggplant Test could enhance its documentation quality and expand language options beyond SenseTalk. Additionally, improvements in UI friendliness and OCR accuracy are areas of concern.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is primarily on-premises, noted for stability but varied technical support experiences. Eggplant Test offers both on-premises and cloud deployments, with similar support challenges. Both solutions occasionally receive praise for proactive development team engagement but require service optimization for improved user satisfaction.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is considered expensive, with significant licensing costs, yet its comprehensive features provide value in reducing manual testing time. Eggplant Test also has a high price point, justified by stability and support. While costly, both tools offer substantial ROI through manual testing savings and efficiency improvements at scale.
I'm not impressed because it depends on the resolution of the screen, so I wouldn't highly recommend this tool.
Eggplant Test offers 24x7 support.
Initially, it was quite poor, but it seems they are making efforts to improve.
For technical support, I would give them an eight because whenever we have a concern, they immediately reach out to us.
We regularly update the product, and overall, it is stable.
For big problems and complex automation tasks, I would prefer UFT because it has more flexibility and is more effective.
The two-system architecture that we currently follow could be better replaced with a one-system architecture.
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary.
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
It can auto-heal the test cases and suggest new paths for testing, enhancing our ability to automate end-to-end journeys across various applications.
It can integrate with GitHub, allowing you to work with DevOps pipelines, so whenever you make changes in GitHub, it runs and checks the smoke testing on the server.
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Functional Testing for Developers | 2.8% |
| Eggplant Test | 3.8% |
| Other | 93.4% |


| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 4 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 3 |
| Large Enterprise | 14 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 2 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 12 |
| Large Enterprise | 29 |
Across every industry, digital transformation is top of mind. New methods of developing software are driving fast change, and test teams are feeling the pressure. Increasing demand to release faster while maintaining the highest levels of quality is making the testing process more complex and harder to scale.
With AI-powered testing, Eggplant’s test and automation intelligence delivers the coverage you need to optimize the user experience, speed up release cycles, and improve your quality assurance process. Discover a fast, secure, and easy-to-use solution that tests any kind of software on any platform or device.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers robust automation capabilities with support for complex algorithms, multi-platform testing, and developer-friendly integration using C# and Java, facilitating seamless testing transitions and efficient automation workflows.
This testing tool is highly valued for its integration with ALM and Jenkins, along with its developer-focused environment adaptable to Eclipse and Visual Studio. With AI-based object recognition, an object repository, and test framework integration, it bolsters DevOps practices while reducing IT workloads. Supporting UFT to LeanFT transition, it caters to SAP, Java, .NET environments, and more. Enhanced with stable automation, extensive protocol support, and both on-premises and cloud deployments, it targets performance, regression, and functional testing, while recording and screengrabs enhance automation capabilities. Future improvements could include expanded browser compatibility, enhanced JavaScript and mobile support, and better object recognition.
What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers?Organizations implement OpenText Functional Testing for complex test automation on desktop, web, and banking applications, supporting performance, regression, and functionality testing across environments like SAP, Java, and .NET. UFT aids in GUI, infrastructure, and ERP application automation, with deployment options including on-premises and cloud implementations. Enhanced screengrabs and recording features aid in practical test case development, while addressing emerging technology needs is a focus.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.