No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Business Processing Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Business Processing Testing is 0.9%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.1%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.1%
OpenText Business Processing Testing0.9%
Other96.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

RR
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.
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer 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, and they work well together.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The big difference with BPT over conventional frameworks with which I have worked is that BPT allows me to separate test development from automation development."
"Because everyone can create test cases, not only the quantity but also the quality is improved, which results in less defects in production."
"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that even a nontechnical tester, like a functional tester or a business analyst, can use it once the components are ready."
"ROI is pretty good as the approach of framework allows virtually everyone to take part in designing test cases."
"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
"The BPT framework is very modular."
"This solution is very helpful to me, and I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested."
"Even with the problems that I have mentioned, I think that this is one of the best solutions on the market right now."
"We have UI controls in Infragistics logic that have been identified by OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, but those controls are not supported by TestComplete, which is what I find most valuable."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
 

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."
"Test execution speed has been my biggest concern."
"Technical support lacks efficiency and all they do is to move in circles by opening new tickets and all the related stuffs without any intention of solving the real problem."
"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."
"Initial releases we used of the product (v12) were a little unstable, but with the release of v12.01, we had no further issues."
"The only one I can really think of is speed to test execution."
"To be honest, technical support is not that great."
"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."
"Since it was a slightly different way of doing things, it was a little complex."
"Because of all the problems and limitations of the UTF product, I would rate it at only a four out of ten (where ten is the best and one is the worst)."
"I think the one thing we're basically asking for should be JavaScript support, but I think they will start adding JavaScript support in the future."
"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 pricing could be improved."
"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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"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 cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"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."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Performing Arts
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...
 

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

 

Sample Customers

Migros Bank AG
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.