OpenText Business Processing Testing vs Qt Squish comparison

The compared OpenText and Qt Group solutions aren't in the same category. OpenText is ranked #37 in FT , and holds a 0.9% mindshare in the category. Qt Group is ranked #12 in TAt , with an average rating of 8.3, and holds a 2.3% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Qt Group users who would recommend it.

OpenText Business Processin...

Read 7 OpenText Business Processing Testing reviews

1,154 Views
992 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Qt Squish

Read 20 Qt Squish reviews

4,416 Views
3,444 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

OpenText Business Processin...

Qt Squish

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText Business Processing Testing and Qt Squish based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. Qt Squish Report (Updated: August 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. Qt Squish

August 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 909,725 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...

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (37th)

Qt Squish

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (12th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Business Processing Testing is designed for Functional Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 0.9%, up 0.2% compared to last year.
Qt Squish, on the other hand, focuses on Test Automation Tools, holds 2.3% mindshare, down 3.2% since last year.

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Business Processing Testing	0.9%
Tricentis Tosca	9.7%
OpenText Functional Testing	7.8%
Other	81.6%

Functional Testing Tools

Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Qt Squish	2.3%
Tricentis Tosca	10.7%
OpenText Functional Testing	7.6%
Other	79.4%

Test Automation 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

Luc Vangrunderbeeck

Software Test Engineer at Infrabel

Testing solution supports Java testing with good reliability

There is nothing you can do for almost every application. If you do it for a single version, it is rather easy. However, if you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need the Qt version of Java. You need to set up some special environment variables to be able to do that.

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

"ROI is pretty good as the approach of framework allows virtually everyone to take part in designing test cases."

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

"Because everyone can create test cases, not only the quantity but also the quality is improved, which results in less defects in production."

"The BPT framework is very modular."

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

"Customer support was good; they work out of the box and are willing to add a new feature if we say and if it is feasible."

"If you are looking for simple, not expensive, with nice support and for Qt-application tool – I think, it’s the best one."

"froglogic Squish is one of the most desired solutions if you are having a Qt as a framework and if you are looking at GUI regression testing. froglogic is a part of Qt as a company."

"Powerful and intuitive Integrated Development Environment (IDE) - I use this IDE daily for creating new tests, debugging tests and running tests."

"It supports many platforms, which helps in getting automation solutions for most of the complex UI products."

"This product can work with QT applications and cross-cut from them, both on Windows OS and on Mac, as well as on mobile operating systems like iOS and Android too."

"Our previous, haphazard approach to testing was not effective, and using Squish has led us into an organized mode of testing."

"Now we have completely automated the Squish runs using CI tools and Squish is not at all getting stuck or creating any problem."

More Qt Squish 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."

"To be honest, technical support is not that great."

"The only one I can really think of is speed to test execution."

"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."

"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."

"Initial releases we used of the product (v12) were a little unstable, but with the release of v12.01, we had no further issues."

"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."

"Features like recovery scenarios can be added as an improvement Reporting can be improved."

"The most complete way of testing is on several OS's, even platforms. Here, the solution provided by Squish, through several Python script files, could be simplified in such a way, so that even black box testers could manage it easily."

"The price could be better."

"I like it how it is, but it's not cheap."

"Anyhow, we can't automate the applications which are completely built on C/C++ without using Qt."

"ID could be improved with suggestions of names, variables or class."

"Sometimes, I had problems, but their support team resolved almost of them in short time."

"As things stand, continuous integration is very poor, and when you work in production you need many more settings in order to tune it, to be a Web user interface, for example, which is currently impossible."

More Qt Squish cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"The price could be better. I believe each developer license costs about 6000 or 7000 Euros per year."

"It is expensive."

"The platform is highly-priced."

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

909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

20%

Construction Company

18%

Educational Organization

Comms Service Provider

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

Healthcare Company

Outsourcing Company

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	10
Midsize Enterprise	2
Large Enterprise	9

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for froglogic Squish?

I'm aware of the price from three or four years ago, and it depends on the number of users. For the developer license, it is about $5200 a year.

See all answers

What needs improvement with froglogic Squish?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for froglogic Squish?

I am not really using the solution during development, however, for regression and automatic regression tests, I am using it. I use it to do visual Qt, which focuses on the GUI part of the applicat...

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Business Processing Testing

Compared 20% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Business Processing Testing

Compared 17% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Business Processing Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Telerik Test Studio vs OpenText Business Processing Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Testim vs OpenText Business Processing Testing

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText Business Processing Testing Competitors

Ranorex Studio vs Qt Squish

Compared 9% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Qt Squish

Compared 8% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Qt Squish

Compared 8% of the time

Eggplant Test vs Qt Squish

Compared 7% of the time

Appium vs Qt Squish

Compared 5% of the time

More Qt Squish Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing

August 2026

OpenText Business Processing Testing report

Download OpenText Business Processing Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

Qt Squish

August 2026

Download Qt Squish product report

Also Known As

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

froglogic Squish

Overview

OpenText Business Processing Testing is designed to enhance software testing processes, ensuring efficiency and quality across IT operations. It provides tools for comprehensive testing and monitoring of business processes, promoting streamlined operations.

OpenText Business Processing Testing offers a framework for executing and managing test activities in a cohesive manner. It supports automated testing, providing users with the ability to ensure that business operations align with intended functionality. The platform integrates with existing infrastructure, offering scalability and flexibility. It includes functionalities for detailed reporting and analysis, aiding in effective decision-making and process improvements.

What features make OpenText Business Processing Testing valuable?

Automated Testing: Streamlines and accelerates testing activities, freeing up resources.
Process Monitoring: Offers detailed insights into business processes for optimization.
Comprehensive Reporting: Provides data-driven insights to inform strategies.
Scalable Architecture: Easily adapts to changing testing requirements.
Seamless Integration: Works with existing IT infrastructure, minimizing disruptions.

What benefits and ROI can users expect?

Enhanced Efficiency: Reduces time spent on manual testing.
Improved Quality: Identifies issues early, enhancing overall performance.
Cost Savings: Minimizes resources needed for testing, increasing profitability.
Strategic Insights: Gives actionable insights for better decision-making.
Adaptability: Ensures testing processes can evolve with business changes.

Industries such as finance, healthcare, and manufacturing see specific advantages when implementing OpenText Business Processing Testing. In finance, it helps ensure compliance and secure operations. Healthcare organizations leverage it for maintaining reliable systems that manage sensitive data. Manufacturing benefits through improved process efficiency and product quality assurance.

OpenText

Qt Squish is a versatile testing tool that supports Python, integrates with Rational Quality Manager, and handles multiple toolkits. It efficiently boosts code quality with features like auto-completion and a comprehensive dashboard while supporting diverse languages and providing strong documentation.

Qt Squish is known for its robust capability in automatic testing, particularly in GUI and regression testing applications across real-time control, embedded systems, and hybrid frameworks. The tool enables behavior-driven development with Gherkin Syntax, integrates seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines, and facilitates effective data-driven and distributed batch testing. Users gain significant value from its compatibility with Qt applications, multiple platforms, extensive language support, and integration with other development tools. Although there are suggestions for improving reporting, configuration for less technical users, Git integration, and object identification, Qt Squish still stands out for its exceptional capability in mapping UI components and supporting automated UI testing.

What are the important features of Qt Squish?

Python Compatibility: Facilitates Python scripting and automation.
Rational Quality Manager Integration: Enhances test management.
Multi-Toolkit Support: Provides flexibility across toolkits.
Auto-Completion: Boosts coding productivity.
Accurate UI Mapping: Essential for precise component identification.
CI System Integration: Simplifies integration into CI workflows.
Behavior-Driven Development: Supports Gherkin Syntax for BDD.
Extensive Language Support: Enables testing in diverse scripting languages.

What benefits should reviews highlight?

Remote Testing: Facilitates testing geographically distributed systems.
Data-Driven Testing: Leverages extensive data sources for testing.
Robust Documentation: Provides comprehensive user guidance.
Intuitive IDE: Streamlines the development and testing workflow.

Industries such as real-time traffic control, embedded systems, and hybrid applications frequently use Qt Squish for automated testing. The ability to integrate with CI/CD pipelines and compatibility with multiple scripting languages makes it an ideal solution for organizations focusing on GUI and regression testing. Companies benefit from its seamless integration with diverse data sources and development tools, enabling efficient automated UI testing across all relevant platforms.

Qt Group

Sample Customers

Migros Bank AG

Google, Nokia, Pfizer, Siemens, Synopsys, Airbus, Boeing, Mercedes Benz, Disney, Shell, Reuters, Vodafone, XILINX, GE, Ericsson

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. Qt Squish

August 2026

Free Report: OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. Qt Squish

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. Qt Squish and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. Qt Squish report.

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.