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 Sep 21, 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 (5th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
18th
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 October 2025, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 20.5%, down from 26.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is 3.8%, up from 2.9% 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 Testing20.5%
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web3.8%
Other75.7%
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

"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."
"​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"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."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"The product is easy to use."
"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."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
 

Cons

"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"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 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."
"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."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"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."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"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 way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
"The product could be more affordable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
872,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Non Profit
10%
Performing Arts
8%
 

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: September 2025.
872,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.