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

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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
27th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (13th)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 1.4%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.1%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.1%
IBM DevOps Test UI1.4%
Other95.5%
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

"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"Integrates well with other products."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"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."
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."
 

Cons

"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 latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"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."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
 

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."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"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."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"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."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"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.
879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Government
8%
Legal Firm
7%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Performing Arts
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

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 Enterprise29
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?
There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.
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...
 

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: December 2025.
879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.