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 (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 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 3.3%, 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 Developers3.3%
OpenText Business Processing Testing0.9%
Other95.8%
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 BPT framework is very modular."
"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."
"ROI is pretty good as the approach of framework allows virtually everyone to take part in designing test cases."
"This solution is very helpful to me, and I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"We can now take test automation through the entire business process -- testing web service availability before automated test packs start, sending and retrieving data via web-services and control of all web service testing in a single tool, along with the GUI testing of business processes across a multitude of platforms from java web through to AS400 green screen terminal apps."
"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
"Because everyone can create test cases, not only the quantity but also the quality is improved, which results in less defects in production."
"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."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"Even with the problems that I have mentioned, I think that this is one of the best solutions on the market right now."
"LeanFT integrates with our developers work-flow, so our developers can now perform automation using familiar tools, programming language, and IDE, which helps get the whole team involved in test automation."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."
"To the business, I would say overall it increases the amount of testing that gets done, with more people interacting with automating."
 

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."
"Initial releases we used of the product (v12) were a little unstable, but with the release of v12.01, we had no further issues."
"Test execution speed has been my biggest concern."
"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."
"To be honest, technical support is not that great."
"The only one I can really think of is speed to test execution."
"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."
"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."
"Improvement is still needed for stability and performance."
"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."
"Ultimately, due to the scripting, integration, and other functionality that is missing, we may switch to another solution in the future."
"I would give six for scalability because TestComplete is lightweight, but unlike that, OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is heavyweight and consumes almost half of the system memory whenever it is up and running, frequently making the system hang."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"Technical support was not very good. We do reach out, but often they're unable to help."
"I didn't find them to be exceptionally good. They are very slow, and for every problem, they want you to raise a ticket."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"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."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
9%
Performing Arts
7%
 

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: June 2026.
902,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.