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

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs SmartBear TestComplete Mobile comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

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 Functional Testing...
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (18th)
SmartBear TestComplete Mobile
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2025, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is 4.2%, up from 3.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete Mobile is 1.2%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web4.2%
SmartBear TestComplete Mobile1.2%
Other94.6%
Mobile App Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Has reduced the need for scripting knowledge and enabled broader test script creation
The ease of use and zero cost are what I appreciate most about this product. The key for us is their Digital Lab service. With Digital Lab service, you have no control over those devices; you are simply getting an iOS device and using it as it is. Many of our customers are using InTune and other deployment services that have security settings on them. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web allows us to test with our customers' setup of their device and ensure that the scripts will run against it versus a cloud service that does not have any of their security sizing and cannot truly mimic a real-life scenario. The overall framework of UFT in general helps reduce manual testing efforts for us. The ease of use and being able to enroll more people into developing test scripts using their AI function, which they call AI but is OCR recognition, is significant. By being able to develop scripts that way, you prevent having to know VB script. I have testers who create manual scripts and are already running the test manually; now they can perform that same effort in UFT One, and it creates the scripts so they do not have to recreate them every time. We do use the product's API integrations at some customers, though I am not as familiar with it as some of my colleagues are. My understanding is that for free, you can set up virtual APIs that do not exist yet, allowing you to mimic that behavior even before your APIs have been built. That is a huge selling feature and a significant zero-cost feature in being able to run your API tests even before the API is finished.
AhmedAllalen - PeerSpot reviewer
Clicking playback and detecting application needs improves functionality
There are complaints about not detecting all objects in the browser. I have to check and verify, and sometimes I have to bypass certain steps, which is a problem. I need to check the solution to understand why it's too detailed to detect or think of the browser. I use Chrome. Sometimes in Chrome, it doesn't detect certain elements in the web application. That's the problem. Also, when I run tests, I cannot export different types of logs in the same document. When I run different tests, it provides different logs, and these logs cannot be put in the same document. I have to compile them manually. Additionally, the tool can manage WinRamp scripts. I would say SilkTest also allows me to run tests, and I can challenge the sequencing, but it doesn't always do this correctly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product is easy to use."
"The ease of use and being able to enroll more people into developing test scripts using their AI function, which they call AI but is OCR recognition, is significant."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"The features I find most valuable is the automatic remapping of aliases, because it is really helpful."
"I like that it offers internal methods for supported controls. It is very easy to code the tests. Object Spy is also a good feature."
"It is very effective for detecting breaks and also for verifying the needs of the application before deploying it or when introducing a new product."
 

Cons

"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web could benefit from implementing a low-code, no-code solution that aids in quick automation code preparation."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
"Digital Lab is a pretty solid product with areas that could be continuously improved on."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"It is very difficult to use the aliases on old software."
"There are complaints about not detecting all objects in the browser."
"The mapping is pretty complicated because there are a lot of controls that are the same and if you have a long name with the object mapping it is easy to get confused."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
"The product could be more affordable."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
873,085 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Non Profit
10%
Performing Arts
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise13
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web could benefit from implementing a low-code, no-code solution that aids in quick automation code preparation. Additionally, from a strategic standp...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web can be used for a range of applications, not just web and mobile. It works very well for SAP, which is an enterprise platform. It can be used for ...
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete Mobile?
There are complaints about not detecting all objects in the browser. I have to check and verify, and sometimes I have to bypass certain steps, which is a problem. I need to check the solution to un...
What is your primary use case for SmartBear TestComplete Mobile?
The application is smaller than the transaction applications. It's a very delicate, complex application. Now I use it, however, it's just a test function for functional testing. I use TestComplete ...
What advice do you have for others considering SmartBear TestComplete Mobile?
It's straightforward to use. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
873,085 professionals have used our research since 2012.