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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Perforce QA Wizard Pro [EOL] 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
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
Perforce QA Wizard Pro [EOL]
Average Rating
5.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.4
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

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.
AK
DevOps Engineer at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Shared change lists are helpful, but poor scalability leads to problems with instability
The biggest problems with this solution have to do with scale. If the load is high then your request is put on hold for a second, and then you have to handle it. If you make a lot of requests then it is your problem. It would be very helpful if a queue was implemented to handle, for example, 100 requests at the same time. Any additional request would be put on hold and made to wait for a few seconds. Once the network and infrastructure are loaded to handle the next request, it would proceed.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"UFT One is 100 percent stable."
"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"The Object Spy in UFT is very valuable for spying on controls in our mobile application and viewing their properties and values."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"It is a stable solution."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"The most valuable feature is the option to pull changes from others or make local changes in your own change list."
 

Cons

"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"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."
"The user interface could be improved"
"In my opinion, the improvement of the object recognition of new technologies and the capacity to catch more performance info should be desirable."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"When debugging code in UFT, it would crash, freeze and hang a lot."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"Generally, we can say that we have not had an excellent experience with Perforce."
"It would be very helpful if a queue was implemented to handle, for example, 100 requests at the same time."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"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."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
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 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
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Ubisoft, Expedia, Honda, Samsung,Citrix
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Worksoft and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.