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

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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

IBM DevOps Test UI
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
26th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (11th)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 1.6%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.3%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.3%
IBM DevOps Test UI1.6%
Other95.1%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HZ
Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada
Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support
The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to how it works with the browser and the startup takes some time. Adjusting those changes to speed up the load time will improve the solution.
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

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 feature is the UI component tester."
"As it is built on Ellipse/Java and costs less than other tools, it is recommended."
"It is 100% compatible with all sorts of database integrations and is compatible with all types of open source TFT-based applications, which makes it a great product to have."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester, which analyzes the changes in UI elements and allows me to automatically adapt and change my automation testing."
"It helps in automation by using better object recognition as compared to other tools in the market."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"Robust API provides quick turnaround for developers to understand and automate functional test case quickly."
"To the business, I would say overall it increases the amount of testing that gets done, with more people interacting with automating."
"In our case, because we’re in the insurance industry, we have technologies from 20 years old to brand new, and that’s one reason that LeanFT is so great -- because it can support all those technologies, even the older ones."
"We have UI controls in Infragistics logic that have been identified by OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, but those controls are not supported by TestComplete, which is what I find most valuable."
"Once we upgraded to UFT Pro, it was an easy adoption, even though it's a commercial product, and it supports our approach in agile and DevOps deliveries really well."
"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"If a company doesn't have people who are skilled in programming, they definitely should go with UFT, as it's simple to use and doesn't require programming knowledge."
 

Cons

"If you look at today's current context, I wouldn't recommend RFT because there are far more advanced solutions and products available."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"The object repository used for identifying objects can be made better. It has been noticed that the RFT tool is unable to identify some objects, due to which we are unable to add them to the object repository."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"With version 8.5 we faced workspace crash issues frequently."
"If in the future there is no support for mobile applications, then we will be using it less."
"As far as comparing to other products, the licensing costs for UFT are very high; the maintenance of the service contract was very high as well and, frankly — compared with more modern tools — it was and is not worth it."
"Technical support is not good."
"Ultimately, due to the scripting, integration, and other functionality that is missing, we may switch to another solution in the future."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"It's newer so it doesn't support as many technologies which makes the investment a little bit harder for us to absorb more licenses than we currently have or to justify buying any more licenses than we currently have because it only supports a certain subset of our customers."
"I didn't find them to be exceptionally good. They are very slow, and for every problem, they want you to raise a ticket."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."
"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
8%
Performing Arts
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...
 

Also Known As

IBM Rational Functional Tester
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Edumate
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.