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

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web 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

OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
19th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 21.1%, down from 26.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is 3.5%, up from 3.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing21.1%
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web3.5%
Other75.4%
Mobile App Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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…
Robinson Caiado - PeerSpot reviewer
Automates mobile solutions while boosting productivity and fostering innovation
It allows multiple devices to be used and gives flexibility in adding devices when a project is needed. Most of the time, I have several devices where it is predefined. We can use it, but sometimes, we must scale it in a particular situation. It's very flexible. It is very important because we can use a different approach to software testing, for example, to find a way to execute UFT software testing with only one execution. This reproduces all the platforms that we need.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"It is a stable solution."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
"The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests."
"The product is easy to use."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
 

Cons

"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."
"UFT still requires some coding."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"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."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."
"OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web could benefit from implementing a low-code, no-code solution that aids in quick automation code preparation."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The price is reasonable."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"The tool's price is high."
"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."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"The product could be more affordable."
"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
18%
Non Profit
10%
Educational Organization
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise71
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

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?
Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the public repository when using Object Spy and adding objects, as it currently stor...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web could benefit from implementing a low-code, no-code solution that aids in quick automation code preparation. Additionally, from a strategic standp...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web can be used for a range of applications, not just web and mobile. It works very well for SAP, which is an enterprise platform. It can be used for ...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web and other solutions. Updated: August 2025.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.