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

LEAPWORK vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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

LEAPWORK
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
17th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
96
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of LEAPWORK is 1.5%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 9.5%, down from 10.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Blaine Anderson - PeerSpot reviewer
Flow automation software that is user friendly for non technical teams and offers good value for money
If it is a business critical environment that needs to be up 99.999% of the time, LEAPWORK is the solution to go with because the ROI on it is good. We ended up using SmartBear because of how expensive LEAPWORK is. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
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…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The UI is user-friendly."
"The most valuable of this solution is the no code option. It offers drag and drop when it comes to development and removes the need for a developer."
"It provides automated testing. Instead of us doing manual testing, we can utilize Leapwork, and it tests most of our critical processes. In the next phase, we also plan to do some process work with it, such as using Leapwork to create reports or provide certain extracts of data."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"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."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"It's simple to set up."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
 

Cons

"The initial setup is difficult."
"The only thing that I don't like about the product is the need to deploy agents on the laptops of people doing the testing. So, you have an agent on a server, then you have an agent on the laptop of the person who is doing the testing, and that seems like a lot of stuff and a kind of anti-cloud. Why do I have to deploy agents on people's machines in order to do something in the cloud? I'm sure they're doing that so they can monitor their licensing and all that stuff, but it is not necessarily a friendly process."
"This solution could be improved by offering better reporting related to the integration into Azure DevOps."
"It is a very comprehensive tool, and there is a significant learning curve to being able to adopt the tool. Because it does so much, there is only so much that you can learn. You can, however, do some simpler things right away. They do have a kind of boot camp where some of their experts engage with you, and during that time, you can work on the top initiatives that you want to do, and that's a good process. After you start using the tool, there is a lot more that you would want to do."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is not cheap."
"We got a deal on it for the first year. We're paying $8,000."
"The tool's price is high."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"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 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."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
857,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Do you recommend Leapwork? How is Leapwork pricing?
Do you recommend Leapwork? I absolutely recommend Leapwork. In fact, I consider it to be one of the best test automation tools. I like it because it provides many benefits. Some of the ones I fin...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for LEAPWORK?
Ten licenses cost around $100,000. The product is not cheap. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.
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 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?
OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samutec
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about LEAPWORK vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
857,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.