OpenText Functional Testing vs TestProject [EOL] comparison

OpenText and Tricentis are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. Additionally, 87% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 71% of Tricentis users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 96 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

6,740 Views
1,105 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

TestProject [EOL]

Read 6 TestProject [EOL] reviews

71% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

TestProject [EOL]

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and TestProject [EOL] compete in the automated testing tools category. OpenText seems to have the upper hand due to its comprehensive integration support and versatility in technology coverage, catering especially to large enterprises with complex needs.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers support for a wide range of technologies and browsers, enhancing test automation. It integrates well with ALM for GUI and API testing, making it suitable for large-scale testing scenarios. TestProject [EOL], although praised for its user-friendly and scriptless automation capabilities, was limited in integration support.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could improve on memory usage, stability issues, and a simpler licensing model. Better browser compatibility and integration with CI/CD pipelines are also suggested. TestProject [EOL] struggled with cross-browser compatibility and reliability post-EOL, and needed improvements in reporting clarity and integration support.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText provides flexible deployment options, both on-premises and cloud, though some users report slow support. TestProject [EOL], offering on-premises and cloud options, had limited customer support primarily due to its open-source open-source nature before being discontinued.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText is considered costly with complex licensing but delivers significant ROI through productivity and comprehensive test coverage, especially for large setups. TestProject [EOL], initially free and open-source, offered excellent ROI for budget-conscious users despite its EOL status.

To learn more, read our detailed Test Automation Tools Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 859,687 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

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)

TestProject [EOL]

Average Rating

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

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

Ashu Singh

Senior quality analyst at Lalli

An easy-to-use tool that saves time and functions within a limited budget

The solution's reporting system should be clearer and easier to understand for a layperson. I and some other experts may be able to understand the solution's reporting system, but a layperson won't understand it. For a layperson, the solution should be easy to use. Price-wise, TestProject is an expensive product. The product's current price should be lowered to attract potential customers.

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 helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."

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

"It offers a wide range of testing."

"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."

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

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."

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

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

"The ease of web and mobile functional testing is pretty easy on TestProject."

"Ability to carry out automatic testing without having coding knowledge."

"The script-less part of it was good for novice users."

"The automation and AI are very good."

"Since implementing this solution, our code management has been reduced by 40% to 60%."

"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."

Cons

"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."

"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."

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

"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."

"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."

"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."

"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."

"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

"TestProject needs better support for integration with other products to provide a better overall solution for test planning and test data management."

"I and some other experts may be able to understand the solution's reporting system, but a layperson won't understand it."

"The support is a weak point since they discontinued the tool."

"Difficult trying to configure on more than one browser."

"We'd like to see a direct cloud from TestProject instead of some other third party."

"In an upcoming release, there should be a SaaS offering available."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"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 tool's price is high."

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

"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."

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

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

"The solution is free."

"Price-wise, TestProject is an expensive product...With TestProject, there is a need to pay a certain amount towards its licensing costs."

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

859,687 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

Educational Organization

49%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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

What do you like most about TestProject?

The script-less part of it was good for novice users.

See all answers

What needs improvement with TestProject?

The support is a weak point since they discontinued the tool. They went commercial, and most of our work wasn't useful anymore. The support or the transition plans for people who were already using...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for TestProject?

We have a mobile app that we need to build regression testing packs, and we spent almost a year building quite a few test cases for automated testing on that mobile app so that they can run every d...

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 30% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 13% 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

No data available

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

June 2025

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

TestProject [EOL]

June 2025

Download TestProject [EOL] 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

TestProject is a free end-to-end test automation platform for web, mobile, and API testing that’s supported by the #1 test automation community.

Tricentis

Sample Customers

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

IBM, Wix, Flir, Payoneer

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

June 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, UiPath, OpenText and others in Test Automation Tools. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

859,687 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Automation 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.