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 #39, while OpenText Functional Testing is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.8. OpenText Business Processing Testing holds a 0.3% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText Functional Testing’s 8.5% 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

201 Views
169 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 97 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,018 Views
5,773 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Business Processin...

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and OpenText Business Processing Testing compete in the software testing category. OpenText Business Processing Testing is often favored for its comprehensive features that justify its investment, while OpenText Functional Testing is appreciated for its satisfactory pricing and support.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing supports automated testing across environments, has scripting capabilities, and enhances test coverage. OpenText Business Processing Testing integrates directly with business workflows, manages complex business processes, and offers a holistic approach to testing.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could improve by adding more advanced business integration capabilities, enhancing its process management features, and strengthening its workflow automation. OpenText Business Processing Testing, while comprehensive, may benefit from simplifying its deployment process, optimizing its user interface for easier navigation, and providing more out-of-the-box integration supports.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing offers a straightforward deployment model with readily available support services. OpenText Business Processing Testing has a more intricate deployment due to extensive process integrations but provides comprehensive customer service to assist with its complexity.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is cost-effective with a lower initial setup cost and quicker returns. OpenText Business Processing Testing requires a higher initial investment but offers significant ROI through process optimization capabilities over time.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 872,706 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

39th

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

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

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

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Business Processing Testing is 0.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.5%, down from 9.5% 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	8.5%
OpenText Business Processing Testing	0.3%
Other	91.2%

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 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

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."

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

"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."

"Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One."

"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 most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."

"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."

"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."

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

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."

"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."

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

"They should include AI-based testing features."

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

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

"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."

"The solution is expensive."

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

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."

"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."

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."

"It's an expensive solution."

"The tool's price is high."

"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 price is reasonable."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

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

872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

11%

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	12
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?

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Business Processing Testing

Compared 100% of the time

More OpenText Business Processing Testing Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 23% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 11% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing

October 2025

OpenText Business Processing Testing report

Download OpenText Business Processing Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

October 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

September 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: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

872,706 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.