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

Genymotion Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Genymotion Cloud
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
13th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
3
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 (4th), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Genymotion Cloud is 0.3%. 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%
Genymotion Cloud0.3%
Other83.1%
Mobile App Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Bhishan Bhandari - PeerSpot reviewer
Founder and CEO at YaYpply
Automated mobile behavior has transformed how our team gathers and processes customer insights
The best thing I appreciate about Genymotion Cloud is that I do not have to individually take on the burden of having to install the Android OS on individual instances. I can directly use the already built-in Android operating system device through Genymotion Cloud, and this cuts almost 50 to 60% of my workload. It is reliable, and the communication between these instances is easier. Putting them inside a VPC, I could save costs in terms of data transfer by using private IPs, and that is what I appreciate about it. Genymotion Cloud has positively impacted us by helping us gather insights that could then later be processed by our business intelligence team to identify potential customers and thus impact directly our revenue streams. Genymotion Cloud instances help us cut a large amount of time gathering insights because these instances are run for 24 hours, and we rotate the instances to gather insights. This helps us reduce the time to generate insights by perhaps 70 to 80% compared to doing it ourselves or building a farm to perform automation. Using Genymotion Cloud, I can run multiple instances, perhaps 100 to 150 or 200 instances at a time of Android devices running in parallel, performing certain actions of automating user behavior. This gives me an unparalleled advantage to the regular process of generating and gathering insights from individual devices. If I were to install Android OS onto an AWS instance by myself, that would be a tedious process for me. That is why I appreciate using Genymotion Cloud instances.
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

"Using Genymotion Cloud, I can run multiple instances, perhaps 100 to 150 or 200 instances at a time of Android devices running in parallel, performing certain actions of automating user behavior, which gives me an unparalleled advantage to the regular process of generating and gathering insights from individual devices."
"The advice I would give to others looking into using Genymotion Cloud is that the return on investment is straightforward because on day one, you can see the value."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"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 ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
"OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier."
"The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests."
"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."
 

Cons

"One definite drawback is Google services; we do not have Google Play services available out of the box, which is problematic."
"Genymotion Cloud, in terms of cost, although it offers a lot of prerequisites for running Android applications within itself, could be improved regarding the pricing point of Genymotion Cloud instances."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"The solution is expensive."
"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."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The price is reasonable."
"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
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
No data available
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 needs improvement with Genymotion Cloud?
Genymotion Cloud can be improved with better ARM native platform performance. Better ARM native performance is needed as Genymotion Cloud is mainly with virtual devices with ARM translation. I woul...
What is your primary use case for Genymotion Cloud?
My main use case for Genymotion Cloud is to generate diagrams. I work for an oil and gas company, so we use Genymotion Cloud to generate data by utilizing all the data from IoT devices in our platf...
What advice do you have for others considering Genymotion Cloud?
Regarding integration, we use Genymotion Cloud with all the CI/CD. I advise others looking into using Genymotion Cloud to start with a small, manageable setup, begin by testing two devices before s...
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

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Genymotion Cloud vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.