Functionize vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Functionize and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. Functionize is ranked #14 with an average rating of 10.0, while OpenText is ranked #3 with an average rating of 7.8. Functionize holds a 2.1% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText’s 9.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Functionize users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Functionize

Read 1 Functionize review

1,030 Views
1,030 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 97 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,409 Views
6,727 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Functionize

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and Functionize compete in the automated testing solutions category, both aiming to enhance software quality assurance. Functionize seems to have the upper hand due to its advanced AI-driven features, which justify its price, offering a more modern solution for dynamic testing needs.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing provides robust integration options, advanced script maintenance tools, and straightforward deployment. Functionize offers AI-driven test creation, predictive analytics, and scalable performance testing.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText provides straightforward deployment options with ready support packages. Functionize emphasizes cloud-based deployment for rapid implementation and scaling alongside a strong support channel.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is noted for cost-effectiveness with reasonable initial setup costs and good long-term ROI. Functionize requires a higher initial investment due to its advanced feature set but may lead to a higher ROI due to enhanced productivity and reduced time-to-market.

To learn more, read our detailed Test Automation Tools Report (Updated: August 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

August 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 864,574 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

Functionize

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

14th

Average Rating

10.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th)

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Functionize is 2.1%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 9.2%, down from 10.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Automation Tools

Featured Reviews

reviewer2541093

QA Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

Provides efficient test automation for web applications and has good technical support services

The platform's most valuable features include its recorder, which allows users to create test cases with minimal effort, significantly simplifying the process. Vision AI enhances image recognition capabilities, improving the accuracy and efficiency of visual testing. The audit trail feature helps track changes and maintain compliance, which is particularly important in regulated industries. Smart fix automatically resolves issues, reducing manual intervention, while the self-healing feature ensures that test cases remain accurate and functional, even when system changes occur.

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

"The platform's most valuable features include its recorder, which allows users to create test cases with minimal effort, significantly simplifying the process."

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

"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."

"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."

"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."

"OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier."

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"The solution currently does not support mobile applications. It would significantly improve its versatility."

"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."

"[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 solution does not have proper scripting."

"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."

"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."

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

"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."

"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product helps reduce overall costs by decreasing reliance on manual testers and speeding up testing cycles."

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

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

"The price is reasonable."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

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

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

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

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

Insurance Company

Manufacturing Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

12%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Functionize?

The product helps reduce overall costs by decreasing reliance on manual testers and speeding up testing cycles.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Functionize?

The solution currently does not support mobile applications. It would significantly improve its versatility.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Functionize?

We use the product to transition customers from manual to automated testing, particularly for web applications. It involves reducing team sizes, accelerating testing strategies, and providing speci...

See all answers

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

Testim vs Functionize

Compared 41% of the time

mabl vs Functionize

Compared 20% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Functionize

Compared 13% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Functionize

Compared 12% of the time

ACCELQ Automate vs Functionize

Compared 5% of the time

More Functionize Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 26% 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 6% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

August 2025

Download Functionize product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

July 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

Functionize delivers an autonomous testing platform that incorporates AI and machine learning technologies to automate the painstaking software testing process.

Functionize

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

Salesforce, Mastercard, Google, HP Enterprise, Cisco, Farmers Insurance, The General

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

August 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, UiPath, OpenText and others in Test Automation Tools. Updated: August 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.

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.