Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing vs Qt Squish 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.3
Katalon Studio is easy to adopt, saving 30%-40% costs, improving efficiency, and enhancing speed to market.
Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText Functional Testing automates tasks, reducing testing time and costs, yielding significant long-term ROI and system compatibility.
Sentiment score
7.3
Qt Squish reduced manual testing time, enabled agile cycles, improved efficiency, and optimized processes with stable automation suites.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
For the part that has been automated in Qt, not everything is suitable for automation.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.9
Katalon Studio's customer service is praised for its responsiveness, with improvements at enterprise-level, but has limitations for free versions.
Sentiment score
6.1
OpenText Functional Testing support is mixed, with responsive service but potential delays and escalations for technical issues.
Sentiment score
6.9
Qt Squish's customer service is efficient and knowledgeable, with quick responses, but video support can be expensive.
Katalon's support is not very strong unless you opt for the enterprise version.
I encountered a couple of issues during the initial setup, but customer care resolved them quickly.
Documentation is good.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
After creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.9
Katalon Studio is cost-effective and scalable for small teams but less optimal for large-scale load testing.
Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText Functional Testing scales well with planning, though browser support and licensing issues require attention for seamless integration.
Sentiment score
7.2
Qt Squish is praised for scalability, especially with floating licenses, but some face minor issues like image recognition glitches.
It allows me to develop, run, and deploy test cases extensively.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
With one license, just one user or one test scenario can be run at a time.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.7
Katalon Studio is stable for most users, but complex projects and updates can cause crashes and integration issues.
Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText Functional Testing is generally reliable, but occasional stability issues arise, influenced by machine specs and implementation methods.
Sentiment score
8.0
Users report high stability with Qt Squish, experiencing minimal issues, which are quickly resolved by support and updates.
It needs more stability when test cases are executed.
Stability is important as it saves time and provides valuable reports to higher management for decision-making.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
 

Room For Improvement

Katalon Studio faces scripting limitations, unreliable Object Spy, slow testing, stability issues, and lacks integration and support features.
OpenText Functional Testing needs enhancements in object identification, performance, cost, scripting support, mobile features, and open-source tool integration.
Qt Squish needs improvements in object identification, testing stability, integration, and enhanced support for non-Qt applications while addressing pricing and speed issues.
Parallel execution is available, but not with the free version.
Providing clearer guidance during the trial period for certification and training modules would also help.
There is significant competition, so providing a good offer with extra features could be beneficial.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need the Qt version of Java.
 

Setup Cost

Katalon Studio is cost-effective and competitive, though some advanced features may require costly licenses compared to alternatives.
OpenText Functional Testing is costly but cost-effective due to robust capabilities and potential reductions in manual testing efforts.
Qt Squish receives mixed reviews for its pricing, with high costs and inflexible licensing compared to other tools.
The approximate cost is around $8,000.
The pricing of Katalon Studio is affordable, making it a sensible option for those looking for an affordable range.
Katalon Studio is on the expensive side.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
For the developer license, it is about $5200 a year.
 

Valuable Features

Katalon Studio simplifies automated testing with versatile features, platform support, and user-friendly tools, favored for comprehensive test management.
OpenText Functional Testing provides extensive platform compatibility, strong object recognition, and robust automation frameworks enhancing diverse testing environments.
Qt Squish is a versatile UI testing tool praised for cross-platform support, Python compatibility, and seamless CI integration.
We can schedule our test cases, and the report which we get can be shared with higher-level management.
Katalon Studio has the highest number of integrations compared to other tools at a similar price point, such as Jira, Brokerstack, and Jenkins.
The browser compatibility and self-healing capabilities are excellent, which helps keep the code updated.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier.
For the parts that have been automated in Qt, not everything is suitable for automation.
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Katalon Studio is 9.2%, down from 12.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 9.2%, down from 10.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qt Squish is 3.2%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Appu Ashok - PeerSpot reviewer
Expansive integrations boost automation potential across devices
I am in the field of product research and am familiar with Katalon Studio for product comparisons and test automation. Even though I am not an active tester, I have created a few tests using Katalon Studio Some of our customers use Katalon Studio, however, our own product, Tangene, is a…
Badari Mallireddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development
I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…
Luc Vangrunderbeeck - PeerSpot reviewer
Testing solution supports Java testing with good reliability
There is nothing you can do for almost every application. If you do it for a single version, it is rather easy. However, if you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need the Qt version of Java. You need to set up some special environment variables to be able to do that.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
22%
Computer Software Company
15%
Healthcare Company
8%
Educational Organization
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Katalon Studio?
Katalon Studio is on the expensive side. I rated it eight on a scale where ten is very expensive. I recommend optimiz...
What needs improvement with Katalon Studio?
The pricing could be improved. Offering a discount on Katalon Studio licenses could encourage more users. There is si...
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...
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.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for froglogic Squish?
I'm aware of the price from three or four years ago, and it depends on the number of users. For the developer license...
What needs improvement with froglogic Squish?
There is nothing you can do for almost every application. If you do it for a single version, it is rather easy. Howev...
What is your primary use case for froglogic Squish?
I am not really using the solution during development, however, for regression and automatic regression tests, I am u...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
froglogic Squish
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Coca-Cola Tesla Black Board TaTa Consultancy Services Sony
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Google, Nokia, Pfizer, Siemens, Synopsys, Airbus, Boeing, Mercedes Benz, Disney, Shell, Reuters, Vodafone, XILINX, GE, Ericsson
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, UiPath, OpenText and others in Test Automation Tools. Updated: August 2025.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.