No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Functional Testing vs Perfecto comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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
98
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd)
Perfecto
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
20th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
21st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 20.7%, up from 20.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Perfecto is 6.7%, up from 5.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing20.7%
Perfecto6.7%
Other72.6%
Mobile App Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Rodrigo Candido Costa - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Quality and Automation Specialist at PRIME CONTROL
The solution saves us money because the cost of each license is 10 times lower than what we would spend to maintain infrastructure here
Sometimes, when the automated tests sync up or we have to debug remotely, we cannot interact directly with the device. We can interact with the code in the debugging tool, but we cannot directly click on the element on the screen or send other kinds of inputs to the device. This is possible with other tools. Also, it would be nice if there were some kind of API to get a list of available devices. Currently, we have to look at the web interface to see the available devices, but the pipelines can't do it on their own there. We always need to do this manually, so it would be better if this feature was automated.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"UFT One has helped us to reduce testing timelines, going from 15 days to certify a release during our manual testing days to achieving that within five days with automation, while also improving quality, increasing test coverage from 80 percent to over 90 percent, and helping us identify defects earlier."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"It's scalable on the enterprise level; I have already scaled a project with UFT One at enterprise level, and I am using it because it is very scalable compared to open-source tools and many other tools on the market."
"UFT provides Business Process Testing from within UFT, using the native UFT user interface."
"It is a stable solution."
"Overall, it results in huge cost savings for our company."
"In terms of Perfecto's ability to perform cross-platform testing, I would rate it a ten out of ten."
"Mobile testing is the most valuable feature as it has reduced dependency on physical devices. We are located offshore and we don't have the physical devices, and shipping physical devices after every new release would be a difficult task. But with Perfecto, it is easy."
"Overall, it's a great solution."
"Being able to run automated tests and see the success and failure rate of those runs every day has saved us a lot of time and helped us identify issues much sooner, which has improved the quality of our software."
"Performance-wise, Perfecto has been awesome."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is automated testing."
 

Cons

"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"The solution works for the most part, but the IDE is horrible (although I hear version 12 has a revamped IDE and is much better) and as a result of VBScript being the language, there is no stack trace information available so debugging some errors is not an easy task."
"The solution is 70-80% stable. Stability really depends on the servers or the license which we have installed."
"The problem with the solution is that you need to have highly specialized skills in order to make the scripts."
"I would not recommend this solution to others who are considering it."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
"We've had a couple of issues lately with videos not loading or browsers dying after some execution, although that happens very rarely."
"In iOS, it needs improvements with some limitations."
"I'm hoping they can support on-premises instances."
"We don't use Perforce's BlazeMeter with Perfecto. From my perspective, it's not really relevant."
"When using devices on the cloud, it lags quite a bit at times."
"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."
"It does well for mobile testing, but when it comes to the web aspect, it is lagging a little bit in terms of execution."
"Going by the dashboard or analytics capabilities that Perfecto or Perforce is looking to offer in its roadmap, it will certainly help if they also cater to executing and enabling decision-making, rather than just focusing on standard testing metrics such as execution, efficiency, and defect rate. These are good metrics, but they don't necessarily enable decision-making for SLTs. Any improvements in the dashboards and reporting tools should focus on metrics or SLAs that can help with decision-making."
 

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."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"It's an expensive solution."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"Although Perfecto is a good product for us to use, it is a bit expensive. It takes management a bit of work to find the appropriate funding for us to keep Perfecto. I imagine there could be some way to make it more accessible."
"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."
"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."
"This is an expensive solution compared to others, by 30% to 40%."
"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 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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
12%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise23
 

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 needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
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...
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
Perfecto Mobile, Perfecto Web
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Virgin Media, Paychex, Rabobank, R+V, Discover
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Perfecto and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.