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

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs k6 Open Source comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (7th), Regression Testing Tools (9th)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (10th), Test Automation Tools (9th)
 

Featured Reviews

ArtemCheremisin - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
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

"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."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The fact that it is so easy to go between UFT with its large install base and LeanFT, whoever has used UFT will quite easily become productive with LeanFT, but with the added benefit of shifting left to move testing closer to the development cycle."
"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"Every single feature on offer is valuable and useful."
"The ability to evaluate live applications in our production environment for unusual behavior and determine problem areas and solutions is the most valuable aspect of this solution."
 

Cons

"One area where k6 could improve is by introducing a GUI similar to JMeter."
"As the releases come, support for all technologies in the systems under test that UFT currently support will be the obvious place for improvement."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."
"Ultimately, due to the scripting, integration, and other functionality that is missing, we may switch to another solution in the future."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much."
"Technical support was not very good. We do reach out, but often they're unable to help."
"The tool could be a little easier."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Media Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Performing Arts
8%
Construction Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise29
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

rackspace, salesforce.com, IBM, servicenow, Nasdaq, JWT
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. k6 Open Source and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.