OpenText Business Processing Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

OpenText Business Processing Testing and OpenText Functional Testing are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText Business Processing Testing is ranked #36, while OpenText Functional Testing is ranked #4 with an average rating of 7.8. OpenText Business Processing Testing holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText Functional Testing’s 6.2% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of OpenText Business Processing Testing users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText Functional Testing users who would recommend it.

OpenText Business Processin...

Read 7 OpenText Business Processing Testing reviews

493 Views
419 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,452 Views
6,001 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Business Processin...

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and OpenText Business Processing Testing compete in enterprise automation. OpenText Business Processing Testing appears superior due to its robust feature set and comprehensive process validation, advantageous for environments needing detailed test management.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing provides scriptless automation, extensive test coverage, and supports numerous platforms. OpenText Business Processing Testing offers process-driven testing, seamless integration capabilities, and efficient validation of complex business processes.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could improve integration with third-party tools, reduce initial learning time for new users, and refine its compatibility with mobile testing. OpenText Business Processing Testing may need easier deployment options, enhanced reporting tools, and a more intuitive user interface.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing has straightforward deployment, aided by prompt customer support. OpenText Business Processing Testing requires more complex deployment but is supported by thorough customer service, facilitating efficient system integration and customer queries.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is cost-effective with a quicker ROI due to lower setup costs and increased automation productivity. While OpenText Business Processing Testing might have higher initial costs, it offers significant long-term ROI by improving process efficiency and automation scalability.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,797 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 Business Processin...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

36th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

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

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Business Processing Testing is 0.8%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 6.2%, down from 10.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	6.2%
OpenText Business Processing Testing	0.8%
Other	93.0%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Revanth Reddy

Consultant at Infrasoft Technologies

Helpful solution that enables us to execute our use cases

There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be a lot easier to understand if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this 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

"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."

"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."

"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."

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

"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."

"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."

"The stop automation is a great feature."

"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."

"The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool."

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

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."

"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."

"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."

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

"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."

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

"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."

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

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"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."

"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's an expensive solution."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

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

884,797 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	1
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	5

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 OpenText Business Processing Testing

Compared 14% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Business Processing Testing

Compared 12% of the time

Telerik Test Studio vs OpenText Business Processing Testing

Compared 11% of the time

Parasoft SOAtest vs OpenText Business Processing Testing

Compared 10% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Business Processing Testing

Compared 10% of the time

More OpenText Business Processing Testing Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 17% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing

March 2026

OpenText Business Processing Testing report

Download OpenText Business Processing Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

March 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus Business Process Testing, Business Process Testing, HPE Business Process Testing

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

Overview

OpenText Business Processing Testing (BPT) test framework software will help you move from one-off manual testing and ad hoc functional automated testing to an architected approach with a library of reusable test components. BPT accelerates the move to component-based testing with an integrated test framework approach to creating a repository of reusable test modules that allow for changes to be made once, then propagated across your distributed agile teams to all affected tests.

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

Migros Bank AG

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing

March 2026

Free Report: OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,797 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing report.

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.