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

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Sauce Labs 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
8.0
Sauce Labs boosts ROI by optimizing release cycles, reducing costs, enhancing test efficiency, and enabling broader device testing.
 

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
8.0
Sauce Labs' customer service is praised for responsiveness, friendliness, and efficiency, with most users highly satisfied despite occasional delays.
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
6.9
Sauce Labs is scalable but faces challenges with cost, VM limitations, outages, and requires more data centers for extensive scaling.
 

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
6.8
Sauce Labs offers stable, reliable cloud testing with occasional issues, but improvements and timely support enhance user satisfaction.
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.
Users want clearer documentation, faster processing, better reports, improved integrations, more device coverage, accurate logging, and responsive support.
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.
Enterprise users find Sauce Labs pricing flexible but costly, recommending starting small and scaling to manage costs effectively.
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.
Sauce Labs offers cross-browser compatibility, video recording, and parallel test execution for scalable testing across multiple platforms and devices.
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
Sauce Labs
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
13th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
18th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

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 Sauce Labs is 5.8%, down from 6.5% 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.
AnupKumar4 - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers good stability and robust but lacks generative AI capabilities
Technical support is equally very important. If you talk about anything deployed to production, and the project is live, customers are using that, and they might face some issues, some functional issues. That's when support people play a role in identifying the fix or the incident. Based on that, we create an incident based on the customer defect or whatever. Once the incident gets raised, the support will play a role in working on that particular incident. If it's a code-based incident, administration, or integration issue, support people play a big role in resolving those issues before reaching the exact developers.
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%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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...
What do you like most about Sauce Labs?
It has significantly enhanced our testing accuracy by approximately 50%.
What needs improvement with Sauce Labs?
Sauce Labs can include new technologies like generative AI, which can reduce the human effort in writing test cases. For example, in my current project, we reduced the time it took to complete user...
What is your primary use case for Sauce Labs?
I work as an automation engineer using Selenium WebDriver with Java, and API automation using Rest Assured with Java. I have also worked with Docker integration on AWS. Additionally, I have experie...
 

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
Salesforce.com, Mozilla, Zendesk, Puppet Labs, Twitter, Bank of America, Eventbrite, Bleacher Report, Okta, Intuit, Travelocity, Sharecare, CapitalOne.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Sauce Labs and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.