Inflectra Rapise vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Inflectra and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. Inflectra is ranked #24, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 7.8. Inflectra holds a 1.4% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText’s 6.8% mindshare. Additionally, 85% of Inflectra users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Inflectra Rapise

Read 7 Inflectra Rapise reviews

2,170 Views
911 Comparison Views

85% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

11,778 Views
8,127 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Inflectra Rapise

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 15, 2026

OpenText Functional Testing and Inflectra Rapise both compete in the software testing market, offering various benefits. Inflectra Rapise holds an advantage in features, which can counterbalance its higher cost, while OpenText Functional Testing presents pricing advantages.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing provides extensive scripting capabilities, seamless ecosystem integration, and comprehensive business process testing. Inflectra Rapise supports web, mobile, and desktop applications, offers a flexible architecture, and adapts to various testing needs with ease.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could enhance its flexibility and adaptability to multiple testing scenarios. It would benefit from increased automation integration options and enhanced support for cloud-based deployments. Inflectra Rapise should improve its pricing model to make it more accessible, enhance its scripting robustness, and streamline the user experience for beginners.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing ensures easy on-premise deployment and provides reliable support. It suits organizations prioritizing stability. Inflectra Rapise offers cloud and on-premise deployment flexibility, backed by responsive customer service, meeting diverse organizational needs.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is more cost-effective for long-term projects, offering an affordable upfront price. In contrast, Inflectra Rapise has a higher initial cost but provides a significant return on investment due to its feature-rich offering, thus appealing to businesses seeking flexible testing solutions.

To learn more, read our detailed Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 893,244 peers since 2012

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

Inflectra Rapise

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

24th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Robotic Process Automation (RPA) (39th), AI Quality Assurance (7th)

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Inflectra Rapise is 1.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 6.8%, down from 9.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	6.8%
Inflectra Rapise	1.4%
Other	91.8%

Test Automation Tools

Featured Reviews

WIllWorley

Software Consultant at The New Humanitarian

The tool needs to improve in the areas of security, though it is a versatile product

Inflectra Rapise needs to expand its ability. I spoke with Inflectra's executive account rep on the need to expand the tool's ability. The problem with Inflectra Rapise is that a lot of companies are still using SAP GUI. Inflectra has no intention of building Rapise in a way that allows it to interact with SAP GUI. Inflectra Rapise has very limited value for the companies I work with because they they still use SAP GUI since their top priority is SAP testing, and they want to get into automation, for which they need a tool that cannot only used to automate processes, but can also do end-to-end testing where you are not only using SAP GUI, but you are using the interface with old legacy systems that are still in use or with today's more modern technologies. In the future, the tool needs to increase its versatility. If I am at a company that uses 23 different technologies, like .NET Visual Basic, Oracle, SQL, or whatever, Inflectra Rapise needs to be made as a product that is an out-of-the-box usable tool for any technology.

Read full review

Kevin Copple

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The first time I used Rapise I completed the automation scripts for a full application in a day and I was shocked how easy it was."

"We always use the product for end-to-end automation test cases."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is its versatility."

"We saved thousands of dollars because the Rapise implementation gave us 30 or more executions for every release compared to three or four, so huge savings on manual testing effort plus easy detection of defects is very cost effective."

"The scripting of this tool is easy and user friendly."

"It's incredible but the support and maintenance of Inflectra Rapise's scripts is less than 30% of the effort that was involved in maintaining Selenium, it is very easy and this is the reason that we are switching everything that needs handling from Selenium to Inflectra Rapise, as it is easy to maintain and provides a benefit in cost and efforts with a 90% reduction factor in the maintenance of the scripts."

"Rapise is a good automation tool that's easy to use and learn, and you can share scripts as a team, which is very helpful."

"It's pretty straightforward to set up."

More Inflectra Rapise pros

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."

"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."

"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."

"It's allowed us to perform functional testing (to verify a specific action or function of code) for each product update."

"For the QTP/UFT projects I have worked on ROI is always over 300% in the long term."

"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."

"This tool is awesome for automation even though it is expensive."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"I faced one problem where it can't validate the colour of images and text. Also, it could not automate the mobile app, and this needs to be included."

"It would be good if there could be more integration of Inflectra Rapise, since not all customers use the same tool for test management and automation integration."

"When there are failures in a nightly run of batches of scripts, it can create a blocking situation where all the following scripts will fail due to unexpected results."

"It has some stability issues where the tool crashes sometimes on Windows 10."

"Inflectra Rapise needs to expand its ability."

"The maintenance is very difficult. We've only been using the platform for three months, so I'm not sure if that will continue, but right now it's an observation I've had."

"It would be good if there could be more integration of Inflectra Rapise, since not all customers use the same tool for test management and automation integration."

"What I have noticed about Rapise is that sometimes when you keep on using the same script, it fails many times."

More Inflectra Rapise cons

"Sometimes you need a little bit more, but then HP help us to find it as they're knowledgeable troubleshooters."

"Cost is one area where there is room for improvement."

"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."

"UFT still requires some coding."

"Technical support could be improved."

"The application can be buggy at times and takes up a lot of memory on your PC."

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where ten means very good pricing."

"We pay no more than $50 annually for support of each one of the licenses."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"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."

"The price is reasonable."

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

"It's an expensive solution."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Comms Service Provider

19%

Construction Company

12%

Computer Software Company

Outsourcing Company

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	2
Large Enterprise	2

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	71

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

UiPath Platform vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 5% of the time

Automation Anywhere vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 5% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 4% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 4% of the time

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 3% of the time

More Inflectra Rapise Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 15% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra Rapise

May 2026

Download Inflectra Rapise product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

April 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

Rapise

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

Overview

Inflectra Rapise is a robust software testing tool designed to automate testing for desktop, mobile, and web applications. It offers flexibility for testing scenarios and supports both functional and regression testing, suited for end-to-end test management needs.

Inflectra Rapise integrates seamlessly with existing technologies, providing a comprehensive environment for test automation. With its scriptless test automation approach, users can rapidly create tests without needing deep programming skills. This empowers teams to improve productivity and efficiency. Rapise's user-friendly interface and its ability to handle complex testing scenarios make it a preferred choice among testing professionals.

What are the critical features of Inflectra Rapise?

Keyword-Driven Testing: Enables easy reuse of test scripts with minimal effort.
Web Services Testing: Supports verification of web API performance and reliability.
Cross-Browser Support: Allows testing across different web browsers to ensure compatibility.
Data-Driven Testing: Facilitates the execution of tests with multiple data sets for thorough coverage.
Mobile Testing Support: Provides testing capabilities for iOS and Android applications.

What benefits should users look for?

Reduced Testing Time: Increased automation reduces the need for manual testing, saving time and resources.
Improved Accuracy: Automation minimizes human error, leading to more reliable testing outcomes.
Enhanced Collaboration: Easy integration with team collaboration tools enhances communication.
Scalability: Adapts to different project sizes and complexities, ensuring versatile use.

Inflectra Rapise is implemented across numerous industries, including finance, healthcare, and retail, where precise and efficient software testing is crucial. Its adaptability means it can meet diverse testing requirements, making it indispensable for projects demanding rigorous QA processes.

Inflectra

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

Sample Customers

- Soflab - RegEd - Intel - US Government

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing

April 2026

Free Report: Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing report.

See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Automation Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.