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

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Selenium HQ 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
7.2
OpenText Functional Testing cuts automation costs by 50%, enhances ROI, and saves 70-80% through increased shared usage.
Sentiment score
7.6
Selenium HQ reduces testing time, achieves 60% ROI, requires Java developers, and improves efficiency up to 55% in a week.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.7
Reports are mixed, with some praising responsiveness and others criticizing slow responses and difficulties reaching higher-level support.
Sentiment score
6.1
Selenium HQ offers no direct support; users rely on community forums and online resources for assistance with issues.
Initially, it was quite poor, but it seems they are making efforts to improve.
The marketplace community and forums are what we browse and look after, and we have found solutions whenever we tried to find anything.
I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.8
OpenText Functional Testing is scalable and flexible, supporting multiple languages and platforms, with some concerns about licensing costs.
Sentiment score
7.5
Selenium HQ is scalable with technical expertise, enabling parallel testing, but scalability varies by framework design.
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.8
OpenText Functional Testing has mixed stability reviews, with issues in integration and performance, yet shows improvement over time.
Sentiment score
7.1
Selenium HQ is generally stable but faces issues with Internet Explorer and new browsers needing maintenance and proper test architecture.
We regularly update the product, and overall, it is stable.
Selenium HQ is a scalable solution; it has been in production for the last two years, but I have been working on it for the last six years, so it is definitely scalable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText Functional Testing needs IoT support, better stability, multi-platform compatibility, enhanced usability, and improved pricing and technology integration.
Users want better browser support, integration, simplified setup, clearer documentation, auto-healing, AJAX improvement, and frequent updates.
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary.
An automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
I don't know if we have that capability to provide different data sources such as SQL Server, CSV, or maybe some other databases, so that kind of capability would be great.
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise users find OpenText Functional Testing expensive despite integration benefits, with high standard licensing fees and setup costs.
Selenium is open-source and free, but setup and maintenance may require investment in developer skills and expertise.
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 versatile, user-friendly multi-platform automation with ALM integration, supporting C#, Java, APIs, and DevOps practices.
Selenium HQ offers cost-free, open-source cross-browser testing, supports multiple languages, frameworks, and facilitates integration with CI tools.
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio.
When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline.
New features in Selenium HQ make object identification easier without reliance on XPath and CSS.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (11th)
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
112
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.6%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Selenium HQ is 3.6%, down from 5.2% 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 ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) 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 ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.
Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
857,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
 

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?
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object.
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
SeleniumHQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Selenium HQ and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.
857,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.