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

OpenText Functional Testing vs pCloudy 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
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)
pCloudy
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 20.5%, down from 26.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of pCloudy is 0.7%, up from 0.7% 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 Testing20.5%
pCloudy0.7%
Other78.8%
Mobile App Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Badari Mallireddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development
I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…
Rabindra Kumar Maharana - PeerSpot reviewer
Very good on the UI level and reasonably priced
We are customers of pCloudy.  We only use cloud devices and pCloudy is cheaper compared to Amazon and other tools. The product is also very good on the UI level where they can see the logs. They can discover any problem at the app level, so that the development team can fix that. The connectivity…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The product is very good on the UI level."
"The product is user-friendly. We can see the logs when we find the bugs."
 

Cons

"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"The connectivity is always a challenge for us."
"The tool has connectivity issues. I had raised the issue with the support team who had asked me to check my internet connection and refresh the browser. I want that communication to be present at a UI level. I want a pop-up that asks users to refresh the page or check their internet connection. The product's reports also need to be optimized and refined to be presented in a better way. The tool needs to add a search option that will help users filter and extract the information that they need."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"The tool's price is high."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a six-point five out of ten. It is neither too low nor high. The product has different packages like gold, silver, and platinum. The number of users is determined on the basis of the package. My company has subscribed for the product's annual plan."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
5%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise71
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the public repository when using Object Spy and adding objects, as it currently stor...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Philips, Capgemini, Honeywell, Jio, Northwell Health, Swiggy
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. pCloudy and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.