Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] and OpenText Functional Testing are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. Additionally, 100% of Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText Functional Testing users who would recommend it.

Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Read 6 Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] reviews

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

11,778 Views
8,362 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] are both competitive in the realm of automated software testing. OpenText has the upper hand in deployment and cost, while Micro Focus provides advanced features and greater flexibility.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers automation tools for test creation and execution, seamless integration with OpenText solutions, and ease of use. Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] provides extensive testing frameworks, complex test scenario support, and integration options for multiple technologies.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could benefit from enhanced advanced feature support, deeper integration options, and more extensive documentation. Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] would improve with a more intuitive setup process, reduced learning curve, and streamlined customer support processes.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is known for its straightforward deployment and responsive customer service. Micro Focus Service Test [EOL], while requiring more initial setup, offers extensive documentation and training for complex scenarios.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is attractive for its lower setup costs, offering a clear ROI through reduced operational expenses. Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] demands a higher initial investment, but its advanced features justify the cost, offering a significant long-term ROI for detailed testing solutions.

To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 893,244 peers since 2012

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

Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

1.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Functional Testing

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (4th)

Featured Reviews

it_user375834

VRM - Venue Results Manager at a sports company with 1,001-5,000 employees

It made it easy for the test team to monitor and measure test execution.

The most valuable features for us are Performance on execution Usage, once most of tasks are drag and drop, so you just need to drag the features during script preparation Integration with other ALM tools My team integrated test scripts from HP Service Test into HP QC ALM test management tool.…

Read full review

Kevin Copple

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It has helped a lot in reducing the time that would be put in for a particular module."

"The data validation used to take a lot of time, and now through Service Test it is done within minutes."

"Service Test provides different opportunities in SOA testing, which helps us to provide better SOA solutions to clients."

"My team integrated test scripts from HP Service Test into HP QC ALM test management tool, which made it easy for the test team to monitor and measure test execution."

"Service Test is user friendly and requires QTP developers a relatively minimal learning curve to catch up with any changes in features that may get introduced by newer versions."

"The most valuable feature is the graphical workflow."

"The solution is in the top list for automatic functional testing."

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."

"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."

"The stop automation is a great feature that is not generally supported by other solutions."

"If one is looking for a software testing tool for functional parameters with an automation approach, they can go for it without any more thinking and discussion."

"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."

"The fact that UFT One covers multiple technologies helps in terms of end-to-end scenarios."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"Its pricing is a bit high when compared to other SOA testing tools."

"When an entire script is ready in the tool and there is a modification of WSDL at the final point, you need to form the code from scratch and there will be a lot of objects in the tool that wouldn't work after the inclusion of the new WSDL, which requires significant manual effort to fix."

"If the license server went down, all the HPST nodes would fail their automation tests, which would bring down the entire automated test infrastructure and people would think the current build was bad."

"They should come up with something like Fiddler to see the service status."

"Service Test technology is primarily meant to test applications without user interface therefore falling short of helping in the test of UI applications unlike QTP."

"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."

"Additionally, there are hanging issues where it becomes unresponsive, which can be improved."

"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."

"UFT is rather slow in execution, and that’s something that needs to improve."

"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."

"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."

"Improvement could be made in the cost of the solution and the support time involved in solving issues."

"There is a gap in technical support which is also part of our review. We've raised issues in the past, which have not been fixed in two years."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."

"The tool's price is high."

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	71

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Compared 20% of the time

TestingWhiz vs Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Compared 18% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Compared 17% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Compared 11% of the time

Visual Studio Test Professional vs Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Compared 11% of the time

More Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 15% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

April 2026

Download Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

April 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

Service Test, HPE Service Test

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

Overview

Micro Focus Service Test is based on Virtual User Generator (VuGen) like Micro Focus LoadRunner software, which is code-centric and uses a technical interface that can be challenging for functional testing teams to utilize. It has also had instances of difficulty parsing some Web Services Description Languages (WSDLs) for complex services.

OpenText

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

Sample Customers

John Lewis, SEED Infotech, Bajaj Allianz, TMNAS, Hexaware, Brewin Dolphin, A U.S. bank

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

April 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, OpenText and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.