OpenText Functional Testing vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

OpenText and Progress Software are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.8, while Progress Software is ranked #24. OpenText holds a 9.4% mindshare in FT, compared to Progress Software’s 1.1% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Progress Software users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 96 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

6,228 Views
2,764 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Telerik Test Studio

Read 5 Telerik Test Studio reviews

892 Views
453 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Telerik Test Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and Telerik Test Studio are automated testing solutions. OpenText stands out in reliability and system integration, while Telerik provides a user-friendly interface and advanced testing tools.

Features: OpenText offers strong integration with enterprise IT systems, versatile testing environments, and support for various applications. Telerik excels in advanced test creation, execution, and cross-browser testing capabilities with intuitive dashboards.

Room for Improvement: OpenText could improve its deployment complexity and initial setup costs and enhance its cross-platform testing features. Telerik can enhance its support for larger IT landscapes, improve long-term maintenance benefits, and add enterprise-level integration features.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Telerik offers a simple deployment process and extensive support resources for quick adoption. OpenText, while more complex to deploy, provides comprehensive support that addresses implementation challenges.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText involves higher initial costs but promises long-term ROI through reduced maintenance and robust integration. Telerik is cost-effective upfront, offering quicker ROI, particularly appealing to small and medium enterprises.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing vs. Telerik Test Studio Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. Telerik Test Studio

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 860,711 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

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

2nd

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

2nd

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (7th)

Telerik Test Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

24th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

12th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

26th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Load Testing Tools (17th)

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 9.4%, down from 9.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.1%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Badari Mallireddy

QA Automation Architect at Emerson

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…

Read full review

Raghvendra Jyothi

Manager Project Management at Capgemini

Very good performance and load testing capabilities

There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

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

"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."

"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."

"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."

"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."

"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."

"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."

"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

"The way it identifies elements is good."

"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."

"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."

"The performance and load testing are very good."

"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."

Cons

"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."

"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."

"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."

"The solution is expensive."

"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."

"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."

"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."

"We'd like it to have less scripting."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."

"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."

"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."

"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."

"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"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.""

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"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 price is one aspect that could be improved."

"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."

"It's an expensive solution."

"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."

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

860,711 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Computer Software Company

12%

Government

Computer Software Company

20%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Government

11%

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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 ...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 30% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 12% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Selenium HQ vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 34% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 19% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 14% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 12% of the time

UBIK Load Pack vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 8% of the time

More Telerik Test Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

June 2025

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

July 2025

Download Telerik Test Studio product report

Also Known As

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

No data available

Overview

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

Telerik Test Studio is an innovative and easy-to-use automated web, WPF and load testing solution. Test Studio tests support essential technologies like ASP.NET AJAX, Silverlight, PHP and MVC. Test Studio functional testing is a comprehensive yet cost-effective automated testing suite. Users can complete tasks quickly and easily with the product's point-and-click interface, which is augmented by Telerik-exclusive features like a visual storyboard and 3D element selection. Test Studio also offers script-less test automation for Silverlight applications. Test Studio load tests allow users to capture quickly capture, multiply and replay complex web traffic. Record HTTP traffic from desktop browsers, mobile devices and web services, and replay traffic with hundreds or thousands of virtual users spread across multiple machines. Fine-tune your load scenario with data binding, user authentication, and dynamic targets. Test Studio Mobile is an intuitive and easy to use test automation solution for Mobile application testing. Create tests once and test across multiple devices and OS's. The point and click functionality allows users to capture quickly and replay complex mobile testing functionality. There is no need to write a single line of code. Test against any number of real devices as you wish or through an emulator by connecting through Wifi. Test Studio for APIs helps customers verify the integrity and reliability of their APIs in an easy way and incorporate their API testing effort in their continuous testing and delivery process. Test Studio for APIs is used to determine whether APIs return the correct response for a broad range of commonly accepted requests, react properly to edge cases such as failures and unexpected inputs, as well as deliver the responses in an acceptable amount of time.

Progress Software

Sample Customers

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

Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. Telerik Test Studio

June 2025

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing vs. Telerik Test Studio

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

860,711 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Functional Testing vs. Telerik Test Studio report.

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