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

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Qualibrate comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
5.9
OpenText Functional Testing reduces test automation time and costs, increasing ROI by 70-80% compared to manual testing.
Sentiment score
8.1
Users saved time, reduced defects, expedited market entry, and anticipated positive ROI with successful automation implementation.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.6
OpenText Functional Testing support is generally effective but inconsistent, with improvements noted and suggestions for enhancing responsiveness.
Sentiment score
7.4
Qualibrate offers reliable support with quick responses, but some users note delays in acknowledging support requests.
Initially, it was quite poor, but it seems they are making efforts to improve.
For technical support, I would give them an eight because whenever we have a concern, they immediately reach out to us.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText Functional Testing offers scalability, supports diverse ecosystems, and enhances integration, though resource consumption is a noted limitation.
Sentiment score
7.3
Qualibrate efficiently supports scalable automated testing and increased workflow demands, accommodating diverse projects with plans for expansion.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
Experiences with OpenText Testing vary; some face stability issues, but recent improvements enhance reliability compared to competitors.
Sentiment score
7.8
Qualibrate is seen as generally reliable, with stability improvements and prompt support communication, but potential for further enhancement remains.
We regularly update the product, and overall, it is stable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText Functional Testing requires enhanced integration, stability, performance, and accessibility for broader technology, mobile support, and modernized interfaces.
Qualibrate's reporting and integration need improvements, with users seeking better support, test designing, scheduling, and automated alerts.
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary.
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise users find OpenText Functional Testing costly, preferring open-source alternatives, with high setup and licensing fees.
Qualibrate provides cost-effective, flexible licensing, appealing to enterprises for its integration with SAP Solution Manager and competitive pricing.
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText Functional Testing offers flexibility, integration, and developer-friendly features, enhancing productivity and efficiency with strong stability and automation.
Qualibrate simplifies test automation with a low-code interface, seamless SAP integration, and efficient process documentation and playback.
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
12th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
11th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Qualibrate
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
37th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
38th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (22nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.8%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualibrate is 0.3%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
FD
Reduces our testing time significantly, enabling us to release more frequently
The most valuable feature is the way it works, the usability. From the first setup, the user interface is the most beautiful. It's very nice the way you can recover things and make it work. We use the solution’s Test Planning & test Execution Scheduling features, and they are very important. They are easy to work with. We use SAP Solution Manager, and Qualibrate works with it, enabling us to manage all our tests, taking them from Solution Manager directly into Qualibrate. Because everything we do is in SAP Solution Manager, we are now able to do test automatization, combined with Qualibrate. All the defects are available in SAP Solution Manager and all the changes will be in Qualibrate, immediately. From Qualibrate, we see whether tests are good or not. We can create a test-related incident in Solution Manager for those that are not good, and Test Suite in Solution Manager will notify the person who has to rebuild it. That works very nicely.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Educational Organization
5%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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.
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
AirFrance KLM, Provincie Noord Holland, Ministerie van Defensie, Nouryon, Bell Helicopter, Textron,
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Qualibrate and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.