Inflectra Rapise vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

Inflectra and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. Inflectra is ranked #22 with an average rating of 4.0, while OpenText is ranked #11 with an average rating of 7.8. Inflectra holds a 0.1% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText’s 2.3% mindshare. Additionally, 85% of Inflectra users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 77% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Inflectra Rapise

Read 7 Inflectra Rapise reviews

152 Views
21 Comparison Views

85% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 38 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews

1,641 Views
172 Comparison Views

77% willing to recommend

Inflectra Rapise

OpenText Functional Testing...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

Inflectra Rapise and OpenText Functional Testing for Developers are competitors in software testing tools. Inflectra Rapise seems to have the upper hand in terms of pricing and customer support, while OpenText Functional Testing stands out for its feature depth and robust capabilities.

Features: Inflectra Rapise provides strong support for a variety of applications, excelling in web application testing, cross-browser compatibility, and integrated scriptless testing. OpenText Functional Testing offers advanced test automation, focusing on complex applications with enhanced capabilities for testing mainframe, web, and ERP applications.

Room for Improvement: Inflectra Rapise could enhance features for testing complex, enterprise-level applications and improve automation for mainframe environments. OpenText Functional Testing could benefit from simplifying its initial setup processes, reducing the learning curve, and tailoring solutions for smaller organizations or those with limited resources.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Inflectra Rapise offers a straightforward installation process and responsive customer support, facilitating a smooth adoption. In contrast, OpenText Functional Testing's deployment may be more complex, requiring more technical expertise, although its comprehensive support resources aim to alleviate these challenges.

Pricing and ROI: Inflectra Rapise presents a flexible cost-benefit ratio, appealing to budget-conscious organizations. OpenText Functional Testing demands higher initial investment, justified by its extensive feature set for those who prioritize feature richness. The primary distinction lies in cost flexibility versus feature depth, making the choice dependent on specific needs.

To learn more, read our detailed Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Report (Updated: May 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 859,129 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

22nd

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Robotic Process Automation (RPA) (30th)

OpenText Functional Testing...

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

11th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (12th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Inflectra Rapise is 0.1%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.3%, down from 3.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

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

Eitan Gold

SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities

OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) 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 ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.

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 most valuable feature of the solution is its versatility."

"It's pretty straightforward to set up."

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

"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."

"The most valuable feature is stability."

"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 feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."

"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."

"OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio."

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

Cons

"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."

"Inflectra Rapise needs to expand its ability."

"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."

"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."

"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."

"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."

"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."

"The pricing could be improved."

"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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."

"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."

"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 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."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

30%

Government

19%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Inflectra Rapise?

The most valuable feature of the solution is its versatility.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Inflectra Rapise?

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

See all answers

What needs improvement with Inflectra Rapise?

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object.

See all answers

Comparisons

No data available

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 54% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 15% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 3% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra Rapise

June 2025

Download Inflectra Rapise product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

June 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Also Known As

Rapise

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

Overview

Rapise is the most powerful and easy to use test automation tool on the market. It allows you to quickly and easily automate the testing of your web, mobile and desktop applications. Why spend hours manually regression testing your applications when you can have Rapise do it for you?

Inflectra

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers robust automation capabilities with support for complex algorithms, multi-platform testing, and developer-friendly integration using C# and Java, facilitating seamless testing transitions and efficient automation workflows.

This testing tool is highly valued for its integration with ALM and Jenkins, along with its developer-focused environment adaptable to Eclipse and Visual Studio. With AI-based object recognition, an object repository, and test framework integration, it bolsters DevOps practices while reducing IT workloads. Supporting UFT to LeanFT transition, it caters to SAP, Java, .NET environments, and more. Enhanced with stable automation, extensive protocol support, and both on-premises and cloud deployments, it targets performance, regression, and functional testing, while recording and screengrabs enhance automation capabilities. Future improvements could include expanded browser compatibility, enhanced JavaScript and mobile support, and better object recognition.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers?

Complex Algorithm Handling: Manages complex scenarios with ease, including fuzzy logic.
Developer-friendly: Enables coding in C# and Java, integrating seamlessly with popular IDEs.
AI-based Object Recognition: Enhances test automation through advanced object identification.
Extensive Protocol Support: Supports a wide range of protocols for diverse testing requirements.
Seamless Integration: Connects effortlessly with ALM and Jenkins, promoting continuous development.

What benefits can users expect when evaluating OpenText Functional Testing?

Efficient Test Automation: Streamlines test processes, optimizing resource allocation and reducing effort.
Multi-platform Flexibility: Facilitates cross-platform testing, accommodating desktop, web, and banking applications.
Reduced IT Workload: Simplifies automation tasks, decreasing the strain on IT resources.
Enhanced DevOps Support: Integrates well with DevOps practices for continuous testing advancements.

Organizations implement OpenText Functional Testing for complex test automation on desktop, web, and banking applications, supporting performance, regression, and functionality testing across environments like SAP, Java, and .NET. UFT aids in GUI, infrastructure, and ERP application automation, with deployment options including on-premises and cloud implementations. Enhanced screengrabs and recording features aid in practical test case development, while addressing emerging technology needs is a focus.

OpenText

Sample Customers

- Soflab - RegEd - Intel - US Government

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

May 2025

Free Report: Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Find out what your peers are saying about Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report.

See our list of best Test Automation 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.