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

OpenText Functional Testing vs k6 Open Source comparison

 

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

k6 Open Source
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
22nd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (10th)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Regression Testing Tools category, the mindshare of k6 Open Source is 1.2%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 13.5%, down from 14.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Regression Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing13.5%
k6 Open Source1.2%
Other85.3%
Regression Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

NalinGoonawardana - PeerSpot reviewer
Principal Consultant ( Test automation - Performance testing) at TTC Global (TTC) at TTC at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Offers good scalability and has the ability to integrate with various systems and services
One area where k6 could improve is by introducing a GUI similar to JMeter. While k6 is a powerful tool for performance testing, it leans heavily towards coding. Having a GUI, even if it is a low-code approach, could make it more accessible to a broader audience. It would be beneficial to strike a balance where basic tasks can be performed graphically through a user-friendly interface, while still allowing the flexibility for more complex operations through code, similar to how JMeter operates. This could enhance the user experience and make k6 more approachable for those who may not be as comfortable with scripting.
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

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 One is 100 percent stable."
"As with any test automation tool, the ability to run repeatable tests unattended during off hours saves lots of manual testing hours."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"To me, the most valuable features were the OR and code compiler (VB script) to call the framework."
"Its ease-of-use; it doesn’t take long to train staff on it, and our third-party script developers find it easy to up-skill staff to use UFT."
"It allows us to automate hundreds of test cases that would normally have to be manually tested."
"Since I started, we invested in UFT and automation and we have significantly reduced our release cycle time."
"This makes UFT the “everything and the kitchen sink” of automation tools, with an easy to learn language, a solid history, and extensive support resources."
 

Cons

"One area where k6 could improve is by introducing a GUI similar to JMeter."
"Getting it to interact with ALM nicely has been a challenge for us sometimes."
"It needs better compatibility with Chrome and Safari, which would lead to this being a better product."
"The core application that we're using in our company is a bit special and resistant to automation."
"It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari. That's a very key requirement for my organization."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"It's an expensive solution."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The price is reasonable."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"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."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
9%
Retailer
8%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

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...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
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...
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...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

rackspace, salesforce.com, IBM, servicenow, Nasdaq, JWT
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. k6 Open Source and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.