Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

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 #39, while OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.8. OpenText Business Processing Testing holds a 0.3% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText Functional Testing for Developers’s 2.9% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of OpenText Business Processing Testing users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 78% of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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 39 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews
  • 1,874 Views
  • 1,612 Comparison Views
78% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

OpenText Business Processing Testing and OpenText Functional Testing for Developers are both part of the software testing category. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers tends to have the upper hand due to its advanced coding and automation capabilities, appealing more to development-driven environments.

Features: OpenText Business Processing Testing offers comprehensive process assurance, allowing for seamless end-to-end testing and a strong focus on operational effectiveness. It is appreciated for its content reuse and ease of test content building. The tool supports participation from both technical and non-technical users like business analysts. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers supports integration with modern development environments, allowing coding in languages such as C# and Java, and enhances test automation processes. It provides integration with IDs like Eclipse or Visual Studio, benefiting users with development backgrounds.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Business Processing Testing could enhance its more technical features and integration with specific developer tools. It might also benefit from a broader range of programming language support. Some users suggest a need for further refinement in test automation features. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers could improve in its ease of deployment and initial setup, allowing for a smoother start without extensive configuration. There is also room for enhancing cross-technology diversity and providing more straightforward tools for testers with less technical background.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Business Processing Testing offers straightforward deployment with reliable customer service, allowing quick integration into existing workflows. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers has a more layered deployment approach, which may require additional setup time but benefits from specialized support tailored to development needs.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Business Processing Testing is associated with lower initial costs and offers favorable ROI, especially for organizations focused on process validation. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, while having higher upfront costs, delivers substantial ROI through enhanced testing capabilities and reduced time-to-market, offering a long-term value investment for development-centric projects.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Report (Updated: September 2025).
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
September 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 869,513 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
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (11th)
 

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 for Developers is 2.9%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers2.9%
OpenText Business Processing Testing0.3%
Other96.8%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

RR
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 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
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."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"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."
"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."
"In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints."
"OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"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."
More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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."
"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."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."
"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."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."
More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons
 

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."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"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."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"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."
More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pricing and cost advice
report
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
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
21%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
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 Enterprise29
 

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?
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...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

No data available
OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
Compared 47% of the time
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
Compared 12% of the time
SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
Compared 6% of the time
Wikidi Testomato vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Wikidi Testomato vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
Compared 5% of the time
IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
Compared 5% of the time
More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
OpenText Business Processing Testing
September 2025
OpenText Business Processing Testing reportDownload OpenText Business Processing Testing product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
September 2025
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reportDownload 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
September 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: September 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
869,513 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.