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

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Worksoft Certify 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
7.4
Worksoft Certify enhances efficiency and cost savings, with up to 583% ROI, by minimizing errors and expediting processes.
 

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
6.5
Worksoft Certify's customer service is praised for responsiveness and helpfulness, though first-level support improvements are suggested.
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.
Their technical support is responsive, which is good, and their solutions are timely.
 

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
7.6
Worksoft Certify is praised for scalability, effectively managing large volumes, but licensing and performance can impact extensive testing.
We are an enterprise company. It covers companies of all sizes.
 

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
7.2
Worksoft Certify is stable with some performance issues due to environmental factors, generally rated seven to nine out of ten.
We regularly update the product, and overall, it is stable.
I would rate it a nine out of ten for stability.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText Functional Testing requires enhanced integration, stability, performance, and accessibility for broader technology, mobile support, and modernized interfaces.
Worksoft Certify requires stability improvements, better customization, enhanced support, integrations, cost control, and simplified usage for business users.
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary.
There are still some minor issues concerning continuous testing, particularly related to the timeout feature.
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise users find OpenText Functional Testing costly, preferring open-source alternatives, with high setup and licensing fees.
Worksoft Certify offers value despite high costs, with flexible licensing and support, preferred for its stability and reliability.
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
The pricing is minimal and moderate.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText Functional Testing offers flexibility, integration, and developer-friendly features, enhancing productivity and efficiency with strong stability and automation.
Worksoft Certify offers codeless automation with seamless SAP integration, enhancing efficiency and allowing rapid automation of complex processes.
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio.
We're getting good value from continuous testing management, and the fact that it's also codeless is valuable.
 

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
Worksoft Certify
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
8th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
10th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
68
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.5%, down from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Worksoft Certify is 4.4%, up from 4.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation 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.
Venkata Manikanta Somala - PeerSpot reviewer
Best tool for SAP Environment & Powerfull Automation tool with user friendly interface
From my experience, Worksoft Certify is a good tool for automating SAP, and it also works fine with web apps. But while creating or running scripts, we do face some automation abort issues, which break the flow and need rework. Also, sometimes it feels a bit slow, especially when running more scripts together. If the speed and stability can be improved, that would really help. We are using CTM for scheduling and managing runs it’s useful, but there’s still some scope to improve things like live monitoring and checking results more easily.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation 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%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Retailer
12%
Computer Software Company
8%
Energy/Utilities Company
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?
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...
How does Tricentis Tosca compare with Worksoft Certify?
Tosca fulfills our business needs better because it is an end-to-end solution across technologies. We like that it is scriptless, so even non-experienced staff can use it. To put it simply, with To...
What do you like most about Worksoft Certify?
A specific feature that I found to be the most valuable in the solution for our company's work processes stems from the fact that it is useful as a low-code automation tool.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Worksoft Certify?
Yeah, the setup and license cost is a bit high as per I known but if you’re working mostly on SAP, it’s worth it definitely. You just need to plan based on your project and how much you’ll use it.
 

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
Kraft, Reliant Energy, Richemont, Applied Materials, Siemens PLM, Mosaic, Dow Corning, ebay, IBM, Accenture, Fortis BC, US Government, Southwest Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Worksoft Certify and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.