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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Qualitia Automation Studio comparison

 

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 Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (3rd)
Qualitia Automation Studio
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
33rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.0%, down from 9.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualitia Automation Studio is 1.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.0%
Qualitia Automation Studio1.2%
Other91.8%
Test Automation 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.
SY
Head Of Solutions at Test Yantra Software Solutions
Testing automation solution that is scriptless and is competitively priced compared to other solutions
The best feature of this solution is the fact that it offers scriptless automation. You don't need to know how to code or program to use it. Within four weeks, my team was up and running. This was the shortest possible ramp-up that we completed in my entire career The integrations for this…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is in the top list for automatic functional testing."
"Supports desktop, web and mobile product automation."
"My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it integrates well into your environment, is easy to use, easy to maintain, and makes your development efforts more efficient."
"For us, object recording is the most valuable and most used feature."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"This tool is awesome for automation even though it is expensive."
"I was able to reduce regression and functional test times by 80%."
"When compared with UFT and manual execution, we have definitely saved a lot of effort, somewhere in the range of 60 to 70 percent when compared with our efforts to manually test."
"The Qualitia technical support group is the best part of Qualitia."
"Qualitia is a complete test automation tool where you can configure multiple test cases at once."
"The best feature of this solution is the fact that it offers scriptless automation. You don't need to know how to code or program to use it."
 

Cons

"Improvement could be made in the cost of the solution and the support time involved in solving issues."
"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."
"When debugging code in UFT, it would crash, freeze and hang a lot."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"When a debug session ends, UFT forces the user back to the main script. 90% of code development and issues occur in function libraries."
"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."
"There will be performance degradation on the test environment due to long continuous executions of automation scripts which leads to inconsistency of results, a better way to resolve this problem should be addressed at some point."
"When using team city to run offline packages, Press Keys do not work, thus giving errors."
"Licensing and missing import/export functionality was a problem."
"The integrations for this solutions could be improved, specifically for Slack."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"The price is reasonable."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"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."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"Pricing is on a higher end but the competition was even more expensive. With this considered, it is a competitive solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
6%
Computer Software Company
6%
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
Springer, PTC, ZS, Shaadi.com, JDA, Cbazaar
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Qualitia Automation Studio and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.