OpenText Functional Testing vs Perfecto comparison

OpenText and Perforce are both solutions in the Mobile App Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.8, while Perforce is ranked #5. OpenText holds a 17.4% mindshare in MTT, compared to Perforce’s 6.6% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of Perforce users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

13,011 Views
4,033 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Perfecto

Read 23 Perfecto reviews

4,723 Views
1,039 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Perfecto

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

OpenText Functional Testing and Perfecto compete in the functional and mobile testing solutions category. Perfecto appears to have the upper hand, thanks to its comprehensive cloud-based solution and enhanced mobile device testing capabilities.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing is notable for its AI-driven object identification, ease of automation across legacy systems, and integration capabilities. The tool is valuable for testing complex applications due to its advanced analytical features. Perfecto offers a cloud-based solution with cross-platform testing support and insightful analytics, which enhance its mobile device testing and cloud lab services.

Room for Improvement: OpenText challenges include complex scripting and limited browser compatibility, which hinder scalability. Enhancements are needed in modern language support and integration. Perfecto requires improvements in performance consistency and reporting capabilities, including better connectivity speeds and network monitoring.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText primarily supports on-premises deployment, demanding significant setup time and resources, while Perfecto provides flexible cloud deployment options. In customer service, OpenText experiences mixed reviews for slow technical support, whereas Perfecto is praised for prompt and reliable customer service with effective communication.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText faces criticism for high licensing costs and complex models, challenging budget-conscious projects. Despite value in automation, more affordable options exist. Perfecto, though sometimes considered expensive, is seen as cost-effective due to extensive supported devices and robust test environments, delivering a reliable ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing vs. Perfecto Report (Updated: June 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. Perfecto

June 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 900,644 peers since 2012

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 Functional Testing Tools

3rd

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

2nd

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (3rd)

Perfecto

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

16th

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

5th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

21st

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (13th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 17.4%, down from 22.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Perfecto is 6.6%, up from 5.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Mobile App Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	17.4%
Perfecto	6.6%
Other	76.0%

Mobile App Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Kevin Copple

Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness

Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

Read full review

Roland Castelino

QA Lead at BMO Financial

Its reporting allows us to have a clear view regarding what tests have been executed

The most valuable would be their Live Stream analysis, where I can see the live analysis of all the executions on a single device or multiple devices as well as track them. The live analysis and reporting would be the single most valuable feature. We leverage Perfecto’s reporting and analytics a lot. From the CI Dashboard, it is mainly the status, which is the past, failure count, and time consumption, e.g., how much time did an average test or script take? Along with that, it provides the historical view compared to the previous result, e.g., am I a pass or fail? Also, the stack trace is very important. Whenever a pass occurs, we don't look beyond that. However, whenever a failure occurs, the stack trace information that it gives us is pretty critical for us when figuring out where failures lie. It gives a summary for the pass/fail count, total test count, the historical view, time consumption for each test as well as the total tests, and the stack rate of the failure. Perfecto's analytics are very important since we use them on a daily basis. We run our executions daily. After every execution, we pull information from the Perfecto reporting system and share that with our stakeholders. Having this information accurately reported is pretty important for us, so everybody is aware of the current status of the product. That way, we can evaluate the health of the product or environment against that which has been executed. Therefore, it helps make those real-time decisions and highlights the impact to the business. I found Perfecto to be pretty easy to use while executing against cross-platforms. The main reason is because the same script or test automation where we execute on multiple platforms has minimal changes that I need to do. Also, it is easy for me to set up an execution on one platform, then on another platform, either in parallel or one after the other. Parallel opportunities save me time. Once the execution has been completed across these different configurations, I can always check and compare, e.g., what are the differences and consistencies? We utilize Perfecto’s cloud-based lab to test across devices, browsers, and OSs. I use it occasionally for manual testing. Though, there are other team members who use it more frequently than I do. I use it mainly for executing my automated tests. We have the Perfecto lab, cloud devices, and machines. I can program my test to execute against any of those devices, which gives me more confidence in my product. I can compare and see how my product or application functionally behaves across these different devices and from a UI point of view, which helps me a lot. The device lab is extremely important to our testing operations. We rely on having multiple devices up and running all the time. Whenever we kick off an execution, there are multiple reasons why executions may get triggered: * CodeCommit * A scheduled job. * Might be on-demand by any stakeholder. We need the lab to be available, as we need devices up and running for executions to take place. Also, the devices help since they allow us to have parallel execution, and not just wait for a sequential device to become free and available. Therefore, volume is definitely key. It also gives us an opportunity to compare execution across platforms in that space. It is extremely important to you that the lab provides same-day access to new devices since we analyze that data every single day after execution. Perfecto provides their own framework called Quantum Framework. That is one option. The other option is, if I want to have my own framework, I can have a Java-based Maven project, take a Selenium library, AppiumLibrary, and REST Assured library, and utilize the open-source framework. It is easy for us to connect to Perfecto, no matter what framework we use, as long as it has these core libraries in it. I can design and structure it any way that I want. The execution will happen in Perfecto no matter what since they have support for these tools or libraries. It is pretty neat that way. We are not dependent on using just one particular framework to use Perfecto. While there are still some framework limitations, there is the opportunity to use multiple, different open-source frameworks, then pass the execution to Perfecto. We can use most frameworks, then design and craft it any way that we want, then just pass the execution to Perfecto.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"UFT is the only technology that enabled us to actually automate our core application."

"I like the direction the solution is heading and am really happy with how they keep adding new features."

"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."

"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."

"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."

"The best features of OpenText Functional Testing include descriptive programming, the ability to add objects in the repository, and its ease of use for UI compared to other tools."

"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."

"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

"In terms of Perfecto's ability to perform cross-platform testing, I would rate it a ten out of ten."

"The most valuable aspect of the solution is that it covers all types of devices on the market allowing you to test different versions of an operating system."

"Overall, it results in huge cost savings for our company."

"In terms of cross-platform testing, they offer all of it, every device available in the market. It covers real scenarios that mimic production so that we don't miss out on any devices that our clients might be using to run the applications we develop. It's been great and very helpful."

"Perfecto has definitely saved us on the costs and efforts of having to maintain our own virtual test environment."

"Their team is really great to work with. They're very flexible, and they always show care. They prioritize our work, our company, and our working relationship. I appreciate the ad hoc sessions that they schedule to provide help with troubleshooting, provide the information that we're looking for, or do a demo of a new feature that they have. They're always willing and very quick to get that scheduled for us. I appreciate that a lot."

"Perfecto has affected our software quality in a good way; it has allowed us to catch our defects earlier, thus improving the quality of our applications."

"There are a whole bunch of things that I like about the solution, but I really love the interaction it has with mobile devices, the testing capabilities, as well as reporting capabilities that we get from the application. The reports are very detailed."

More Perfecto pros

Cons

"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."

"Sometimes you need a little bit more, but then HP help us to find it as they're knowledgeable troubleshooters."

"Having an Object Repository that is not stored but built through the run is the most difficult and time consuming task."

"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."

"The application can be buggy at times and takes up a lot of memory on your PC."

"Stability can be an issue, and the weaker the resources on the machine running UFT the more likely there will be problems."

"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."

"The initial setup is complex."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

"There was a discussion about having the capability to export the test results to a certain tool that we use in our project. If that were added it would be great not having to manually take screenshots, put them in a document, and share them on the different test management tools."

"It is slow compared to physical device testing. The interactive speed could be improved."

"The flakiness, or the accuracy, of the test execution can be improved. Also, the responsiveness of their cloud lab could be improved as well."

"I'm hoping they can support on-premises instances."

"If we could run an accessibility test in Perfecto against builds, it would help us a lot. Currently, that's a very manual process for us. We haven't found a tool that can do accessibility scans for iOS and doesn't depend on engineering effort. Having a feature related to that would be really awesome for us."

"One improvement would be speed of execution. If it is an iOS native app, we have noticed that the speed is a bit slower. Perfecto might need to make some improvements in this area."

"Its performance should be improved. Anything to speed up the user interface would be a great help. We've had a lot of pain with their migration from a product UI that was based on Adobe Flash to the new product that is based on HTML5. Migrations like that seemed to be very painful and not a real smooth process. We're still sort of recovering from that migration from old technology to new, and we haven't got all the functionality ported over that we used to have on the old UI."

"Previously, we used the cradle. Every time the mobile was blocking it, we would have to ask Perfecto to provide another one. That took a lot of time away from us."

More Perfecto cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"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 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 licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

"It's definitely on the higher end of prices for this type of service."

"Perfecto is about 30-40% cheaper than Device Anywhere. That was a big reason why we switched. Perfecto also solves some of the issues that we had with Device Anywhere. We have grown by 100% since we started to use Perfecto, and now we have devices roaming. When we look at the competition, we would still stick with Perfecto."

"I am not sure about its pricing, but from our perspective, licensing has been easy. Anytime I have new users or requests for users that want to get added, it's a very simple process. I just give the architectural owner of the product the name and email address, and they're able to easily add a new user. We don't have any issues in regards to getting licenses, but I don't have any insights into pricing."

"Pricing-wise, it is fine. It is not as expensive as what we used to have in the past from HP, IBM, and others. It is decently priced."

"Perfecto has definitely saved us on the costs and efforts of having to maintain our own virtual test environment. We lost about 20 devices in the past to maintenance and audit. That was a massive loss for us, as a company, because we were giving devices to someone, but don't know whether we would get it back or not. Having those virtual labs, we don't need to worry about these kinds of things. We are easily saving $5,000 to $10,000 a month on device costing."

"Pricing is an area where Perfecto can do a little better. When we obtain additional licenses, we enter into negotiations with them."

"Perfecto's price is excellent compared to other products with similar features. It was the lowest of the three we evaluated. We also established a partnership with Perfecto, so they provide discounts when we sell Perfecto projects and licenses to our customers."

"This is an expensive solution compared to others, by 30% to 40%."

More Perfecto pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Construction Company

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

21%

Construction Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Healthcare Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	74

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	1
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	23

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?

I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 16% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

BrowserStack vs Perfecto

Compared 11% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Perfecto

Compared 9% of the time

TestMu AI (Formerly LambdaTest) vs Perfecto

Compared 5% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs Perfecto

Compared 4% of the time

Appium vs Perfecto

Compared 3% of the time

More Perfecto Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

June 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

Perfecto

June 2026

Download Perfecto product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

Perfecto Mobile, Perfecto Web

Overview

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

Perfecto is a cloud-based testing platform that supports automated and manual testing processes across many devices and operating systems, facilitating cross-platform and real-time data access. Users experience seamless testing integrations, although improvements are sought in some areas.

Perfecto provides extensive mobile testing capabilities across iOS, Android, and more, with automation and enhanced reporting options such as video recordings. While it excels with Appium and Selenium integration for cross-platform consistency and CI Dashboard features, it faces challenges in iOS web testing and hybrid apps. Users indicate the need for better integration with test management tools, dashboard metrics improvements, and machine learning features. Cloud device response times and UI interactions could benefit from performance enhancements, while users desire longer report history and API automation advancements.

What are Perfecto's most important features?

Cloud-based Architecture: Access a vast array of devices and OS versions for testing scalability.
Automation: Supports Selenium and Appium for streamlined testing processes.
Enhanced Reporting: Offers video recordings to help validate tests thoroughly.
Cross-platform Testing: Execute tests across multiple platforms efficiently.
Real-time Data Access: Monitor tests via CI Dashboard and Live Stream.

What benefits or ROI can users expect from reviews?

Increased Device Availability: Quickly access the newest devices and software updates.
Improved Testing Speed: Allow faster test execution and feedback loops.
Scalability: Easily scale up or down with cloud-based resources.
Enhanced Productivity: Automate tests and streamline reporting for efficiency.

Perfecto has broad applications in industries such as retail, finance, and technology, where secure and scalable testing is critical. Organizations employ it in both private and public cloud environments for mobile, web, and API testing. Its ability to provide extensive device coverage and integration into existing CI/CD processes makes it integral for ensuring reliable mobile app performance and compatibility across platforms.

Perforce

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Virgin Media, Paychex, Rabobank, R+V, Discover

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. Perfecto

June 2026

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing vs. Perfecto

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Perfecto and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Functional Testing vs. Perfecto report.

See our list of best Mobile App Testing Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation Tools vendors.

We monitor all Mobile App Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.