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

LEAPWORK vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 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

LEAPWORK
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
20th
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
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of LEAPWORK is 1.7%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 6.8%, down from 9.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing6.8%
LEAPWORK1.7%
Other91.5%
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VS
Test Associate & Manager at IGT Solutions
The product has a user-friendly UI, and it provides good support, but it is expensive and difficult to setup
We are partners with the product. We use it for end-to-end automation. We can automate server-based and web-based applications. We can also do continuous integration and continuous delivery It is a low-code/no-code automation tool. The UI is user-friendly. It supports web-based and browser-based…
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

"Anyone can use LEAPWORK because it is a no code solution that removes the need for a developer."
"The UI is user-friendly."
"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."
"As a testing tool, it is great; it does exactly what we need it to do, and it is very robust in the number of features that you could support for testing."
"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."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications, and it is very productive in terms of execution."
"A key benefit, obviously, is in terms of effort savings that we have achieved using UFT."
"The fact that it works with a vast number of technologies works for us because our internal customers use the tool for testing a lot of different applications."
"UFT is an expensive tool that can save you a lot of time and effort and provide great value for money if used correctly, but also turn out as ineffective related to value-for-money if used the wrong way."
"My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it integrates well into your environment, is easy to use, easy to maintain, and makes your development efforts more efficient."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"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."
"This solution could be improved by offering better reporting related to the integration into Azure DevOps."
"In terms of what could be improved, they need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user and if we're going to spread this throughout the organization, we'll need to spend a whole lot of money."
"There were some issues with deployment and the integration into Solution Manager."
"A user is forced back to the main script during debugging. 90% of code development and issues occur in function libraries, so having the tool jump back to the main script from its last line of execution is problematic making debugging overly tedious."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"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."
"We used to run it as a test suite. OpenText provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available."
"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
 

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 price is one aspect that could be improved."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"It's an expensive solution."
"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."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Insurance Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
7%
Retailer
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise71
 

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...
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

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 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.