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 #37, while OpenText Functional Testing is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.7. OpenText Business Processing Testing holds a 0.5% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText Functional Testing’s 7.7% 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

294 Views
241 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

7,852 Views
5,575 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: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 879,310 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

37th

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

2nd

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 (6th), Test Automation Tools (4th)

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Business Processing Testing is 0.5%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.7%, down from 9.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	7.7%
OpenText Business Processing Testing	0.5%
Other	91.8%

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

Badari Mallireddy

QA Automation Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees

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

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."

"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."

"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."

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

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

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

"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."

"It offers a wide range of testing."

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

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"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."

"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."

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."

"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."

"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."

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

"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."

"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."

"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."

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

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"The tool's price is high."

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

"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 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."

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"It's an expensive solution."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"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.""

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

879,310 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

10%

Government

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 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?

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Business Processing Testing

Compared 50% of the time

More OpenText Business Processing Testing Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 18% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 9% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing

December 2025

OpenText Business Processing Testing report

Download OpenText Business Processing Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

December 2025

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

December 2025

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: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

879,310 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.