No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

HeadSpin vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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

HeadSpin
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
35th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Mobile APM (7th)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of HeadSpin is 1.2%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.8%, down from 9.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.8%
HeadSpin1.2%
Other91.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Saorabh Singh - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Manager - QA at Games24x7
It fulfills everything from automation to manual performance
The most valuable features of the product are the performance parameters it gives us, as well as the seamless connectivity with our automation suites. I am also pleased with the continuous enhancements made to HeadSpin. There have been many features added since we started using the product, and all of them are useful.
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

"HeadSpin is highly advanced; it has got all the performance structures to provide visibility into how my app is performing in the real world and helps to identify the gaps."
"HeadSpin allowed us to manage remote work during Covid, enable continuous automation execution, and facilitate collaboration between various departments (product managers, developers, etc..)"
"The technical support is really helpful because we can set up direct calls with them if we want to. We can use Zoom or Google Meet to interact with them directly, and if there is an issue in our system, they will help us by reproducing the issue in their machines and trying to figure out a solution. The support is really smooth, and we like that they're very supportive."
"The most valuable feature of HeadSpin it's the integration with other solutions; it is great, and I can search for an element or do a quick debugging on the application right on HeadSpin, which is very useful."
"The most valuable feature is that this is the first connected intelligence all-in-one platform."
"The most valuable features of the product are the performance parameters it gives us."
"Large companies and enterprises are using this product."
"It has an interesting feature called AV box testing. A lot of companies that are in the OTT segment don't really understand what their streaming is like. They can't test for streaming quality. There are restrictions where you cannot simulate live streaming. For example, on Netflix, you can't simulate how a movie is being streamed on a remote device. That's why HeadSpin has got this AV box testing feature. It is a patented feature. They send an AV box to your location, and you can test live streaming, which is something that no other company does."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"UFT One has helped us to reduce testing timelines, going from 15 days to certify a release during our manual testing days to achieving that within five days with automation, while also improving quality, increasing test coverage from 80 percent to over 90 percent, and helping us identify defects earlier."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"It's simple to set up."
"The most valuable features are the API testing, the integration with DevOps and accessibility to people without a lot of technical skill."
"UFT is the only technology that enabled us to actually automate our core application."
"It allows us to automate hundreds of test cases that would normally have to be manually tested."
 

Cons

"Support and pricing could be improved."
"Sometimes, devices go offline and some features are not functioning on some devices, specifically on iOS."
"They should automate their onboarding. A lot of things are still manual. They can create a video assistant or something like that to completely automate the entire process."
"If you want to do some testing or check the devices manually or check the application in a particular device manually, it is really laggy. That's a disappointment because sometimes we would like to do manual testing when our local devices are not available."
"HeadSpin could improve on the user interface because it is very poor. The checks that are done on the iOS devices are very difficult, but for Android, it runs great. For all iOS devices, the user interface and how it interacts with the device are very poor."
"HeadSpin could improve on the user interface because it is very poor."
"HeadSpin needs to improve the hardware. With the mobile, the battery life reduces and must be continuously charged."
"There is a great scope to improve professional services; the time to deploy is quite long, and while they can set up automation through scripts at this stage, they are very expensive."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."
"Prior to the past three years, we saw a lot of issues with stability and a lot of patching and concern from our internal customers that they couldn't rely on the tool to always be there when they needed it."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"There were some issues with deployment and the integration into Solution Manager."
"In my opinion, the improvement of the object recognition of new technologies and the capacity to catch more performance info should be desirable."
"The application can be buggy at times and takes up a lot of memory on your PC."
"Technical support could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's not cheap, but there are a few different packages and different prices for enterprises with different product versions."
"We have a yearly license for 16 devices."
"I believe the licensing cost is cheap because it's a total solution, hardware, license and software."
"It has a yearly license. There is no other option. It is expensive. There are a lot of other cheaper players in the market, but it is like a Mercedes. You pay an extra premium for it, but you get the benefits. I would love to see them come up with project-based costing. Companies that are low on funds or new-age can do with pricing that is easily digestible. They can give them a pricing model for three months. They can provide a startup package."
"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 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."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The tool's price is high."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"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.""
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for HeadSpin?
HeadSpin definitely helps us cut costs because earlier, when we owned devices, our testing cost for each project was around thirteen thousand dollars per month. After starting to use HeadSpin, the ...
What needs improvement with HeadSpin?
There are several areas where HeadSpin can be improved. One major feature that is problematic for us is the iOS experience; we often receive complaints from our team that device interaction on iOS ...
What is your primary use case for HeadSpin?
HeadSpin is used for different kinds of testing including automated testing, manual testing, and performance testing. It can be used for different device brands; for example, testing on Samsung dev...
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 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...
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...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Zynga, Tinder, Pinterest, Akamai, Microsoft, Airbnb, Jam City, TMobile, Mozilla, CNN, Cognizant, Yahoo!, ebay, Quora, Walmart, Kohls, Telstra
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about HeadSpin vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.