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

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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
23rd
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
7th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 1.9%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.8%, up from 3.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.8%
IBM DevOps Test UI1.9%
Other94.3%
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

"Robust API provides quick turnaround for developers to understand and automate functional test case quickly."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"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."
"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."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"The technical support is good; at least their response time is good, and whenever we ask them for help regarding deployment customizations, custom code implementation, or other code needs, they heavily support us, assign us IT engineers who work alongside us helping with code-related issues, and stay until the problem is resolved."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"Integrates well with other products."
"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."
"In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints."
"Every single feature on offer is valuable and useful."
"Customer Service: The support in the alpha/beta test phase was especially good."
"I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective."
"Since we started using the Quality Center for the integration of all Microsoft tools, things have been much easier for us."
 

Cons

"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"If you look at today's current context, I wouldn't recommend RFT because there are far more advanced solutions and products available."
"It does not fully justify being a paid tool, and it needs improvement."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"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."
"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."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills."
"I didn't find them to be exceptionally good. They are very slow, and for every problem, they want you to raise a ticket."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another one."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."
"I think the one thing we're basically asking for should be JavaScript support, but I think they will start adding JavaScript support in the future."
"Ultimately, due to the scripting, integration, and other functionality that is missing, we may switch to another solution in the future."
"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."
"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."
 

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."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"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."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
10%
 

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: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.