OpenText Functional Testing vs k6 Open Source comparison

k6 and OpenText are both solutions in the Regression Testing Tools category. k6 is ranked #9 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText is ranked #3 with an average rating of 7.7. k6 holds a 1.2% mindshare in RTT, compared to OpenText’s 12.3% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of k6 users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

k6 Open Source

Read 2 k6 Open Source reviews

914 Views
155 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

7,884 Views
3,942 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

k6 Open Source

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and k6 Open Source are competitors in software testing. Each product highlights specific strengths; OpenText offers a comprehensive service experience, whereas k6 prioritizes performance and integration.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing provides advanced automated cross-platform support, sophisticated test management tools, and comprehensive testing coverage. k6 Open Source emphasizes performance testing with integration into development workflows and modern scripting environments. While OpenText is comprehensive in coverage, k6 offers performance agility and flexibility in deployment.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is more structured in deployment and offers extensive customer support. k6 Open Source aligns with DevOps practices through a dynamic installation process but offers limited dedicated support.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing has higher initial setup costs, promising long-term returns with its feature set. k6 Open Source, being open-source, requires minimal initial investment, offering immediate ROI through its cost-effective performance testing capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing vs. k6 Open Source Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. k6 Open Source

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,114 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

k6 Open Source

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

9th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Load Testing Tools (7th)

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (4th), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Regression Testing Tools category, the mindshare of k6 Open Source is 1.2%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 12.3%, down from 14.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Regression Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	12.3%
k6 Open Source	1.2%
Other	86.5%

Regression Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

ArtemCheremisin

Performance Test Engineer at BETBY

Lighter on the RAM and has native Grafana support

The tool's big advantage is that it is more performance-test oriented for experienced testers who know what they are doing. In a normal working setup, performance engineers frequently work with DevOps and development teams. For these teams, k6 Open Source's syntax is much simpler and easier to understand and apply in the working process. Recently, I had a case where I was using another tool, and there wasn't enough memory for it because it required more RAM. k6 Open Source, on the other hand, is lighter and doesn't have a UI, which is beneficial. An engineer I was training could use k6 Open Source scripts even without my help. The tool is more efficient and has native support with Grafana, as both are developed by the same company. This integration enhances monitoring and loss ratio tracking. Thanks to its intelligent GUI, k6 Open Source's design is simpler, particularly for complex scenarios. When we need to manage hundreds of thousands or millions of transactions per minute, the solution becomes a game-changer compared to JMeter.

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 tool's big advantage is that it is more performance-test oriented for experienced testers who know what they are doing. In a normal working setup, performance engineers frequently work with DevOps and development teams. For these teams, k6 Open Source's syntax is much simpler and easier to understand and apply in the working process."

"The standout feature of k6 is its strong focus on API performance testing."

"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."

"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."

"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."

"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."

"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."

"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."

"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."

"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"One area where k6 could improve is by introducing a GUI similar to JMeter."

"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."

"The initial setup is complex."

"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."

"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."

"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."

"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."

"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."

"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."

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

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

"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."

"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"The price is reasonable."

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Media Company

Retailer

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

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

Questions from the Community

What advice do you have for others considering k6 Open Source?

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

See all answers

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 do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?

My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

See all answers

Comparisons

BlazeMeter vs k6 Open Source

Compared 15% of the time

Tricentis NeoLoad vs k6 Open Source

Compared 14% of the time

Selenium HQ vs k6 Open Source

Compared 9% of the time

Apache JMeter vs k6 Open Source

Compared 9% of the time

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs k6 Open Source

Compared 8% of the time

More k6 Open Source Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 19% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Load Testing Tools

January 2026

Download k6 Open Source product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

January 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

Load Impact

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

Overview

Load Impact offers three main features:

Automated testing - Integrates into your CD pipeline with CI plug-ins or opt for full control with API/SDKs.
API testing - a powerful scripting environment where you can create as simple or complex API scenarios as you need.
Web & web app testing - easily load test your website or web app. Record user scenarios using our Chrome extension or proxy recorder and configure a test with just a few clicks - no programming required.

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

rackspace, salesforce.com, IBM, servicenow, Nasdaq, JWT

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. k6 Open Source

December 2025

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing vs. k6 Open Source

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. k6 Open Source and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Functional Testing vs. k6 Open Source report.

See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Regression Testing 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.