OpenText Business Processing Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

OpenText Business Processing Testing and OpenText Functional Testing for Developers are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText Business Processing Testing is ranked #40, while OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.8. OpenText Business Processing Testing holds a 0.1% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText Functional Testing for Developers’s 2.6% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of OpenText Business Processing Testing users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 77% of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers users who would recommend it.

OpenText Business Processin...

Read 7 OpenText Business Processing Testing reviews

132 Views
37 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 38 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews

1,679 Views
1,028 Comparison Views

77% willing to recommend

OpenText Business Processin...

OpenText Functional Testing...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Business Processing Testing and OpenText Functional Testing for Developers compete in the software testing category. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers appears to have an upper hand due to its advanced features catering specifically to developers.

Features: OpenText Business Processing Testing focuses on end-to-end business process validation, providing robust process automation, extensive reporting tools, and seamless integration with business applications. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers advanced scripting capabilities, strong API testing, and flexibility in test scripting, making it ideal for agile development environments.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Business Processing Testing could improve by offering more flexible scripting options, enhanced API testing capabilities, and better customization features. For OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, areas for improvement include simplifying the user interface, enhancing non-developer usability, and improving integration with a wider range of business applications.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Business Processing Testing provides a straightforward deployment process and reliable customer support, favoring business teams. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, while more technical to deploy, provides extensive developer-focused resources and support.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Business Processing Testing offers a more accessible pricing model, delivering strong ROI through effective business process automation. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers has a higher upfront cost, justified by its rich feature set, offering significant long-term ROI for technical teams prioritizing quality assurance.

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 859,129 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

40th

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

12th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (11th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Business Processing Testing is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.6%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

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

Eitan Gold

SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities

OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.

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

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

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

"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."

"OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."

"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."

"The most valuable features are the object repository."

"I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective."

"Integrates well with other products."

"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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."

"Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously."

"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."

"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."

"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."

"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."

"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object.

See all answers

Comparisons

No data available

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 54% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 15% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 3% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing

June 2025

OpenText Business Processing Testing report

Download OpenText Business Processing Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

June 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Also Known As

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

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

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 for Developers offers robust automation capabilities with support for complex algorithms, multi-platform testing, and developer-friendly integration using C# and Java, facilitating seamless testing transitions and efficient automation workflows.

This testing tool is highly valued for its integration with ALM and Jenkins, along with its developer-focused environment adaptable to Eclipse and Visual Studio. With AI-based object recognition, an object repository, and test framework integration, it bolsters DevOps practices while reducing IT workloads. Supporting UFT to LeanFT transition, it caters to SAP, Java, .NET environments, and more. Enhanced with stable automation, extensive protocol support, and both on-premises and cloud deployments, it targets performance, regression, and functional testing, while recording and screengrabs enhance automation capabilities. Future improvements could include expanded browser compatibility, enhanced JavaScript and mobile support, and better object recognition.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers?

Complex Algorithm Handling: Manages complex scenarios with ease, including fuzzy logic.
Developer-friendly: Enables coding in C# and Java, integrating seamlessly with popular IDEs.
AI-based Object Recognition: Enhances test automation through advanced object identification.
Extensive Protocol Support: Supports a wide range of protocols for diverse testing requirements.
Seamless Integration: Connects effortlessly with ALM and Jenkins, promoting continuous development.

What benefits can users expect when evaluating OpenText Functional Testing?

Efficient Test Automation: Streamlines test processes, optimizing resource allocation and reducing effort.
Multi-platform Flexibility: Facilitates cross-platform testing, accommodating desktop, web, and banking applications.
Reduced IT Workload: Simplifies automation tasks, decreasing the strain on IT resources.
Enhanced DevOps Support: Integrates well with DevOps practices for continuous testing advancements.

Organizations implement OpenText Functional Testing for complex test automation on desktop, web, and banking applications, supporting performance, regression, and functionality testing across environments like SAP, Java, and .NET. UFT aids in GUI, infrastructure, and ERP application automation, with deployment options including on-premises and cloud implementations. Enhanced screengrabs and recording features aid in practical test case development, while addressing emerging technology needs is a focus.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Migros Bank AG

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

May 2025

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

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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

See our list of best Functional 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.