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

OpenText Functional Testing vs ReadyAPI Test vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText Functional Testing automates tasks, reducing testing time and costs, yielding significant long-term ROI and system compatibility.
Sentiment score
7.9
ReadyAPI Test greatly boosts developer and QA productivity, automating 10,000 tests hourly, providing substantial ROI despite high costs.
Sentiment score
6.9
Tricentis Tosca offers positive ROI through quick test automation, benefiting agile environments by reducing testing time and costs.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
Tasks that typically take ten hours are reduced to two to three hours, representing a threefold productivity gain.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.1
OpenText Functional Testing support is mixed, with responsive service but potential delays and escalations for technical issues.
Sentiment score
7.3
ReadyAPI Test is user-friendly with responsive SmartBear support, though some users suggest improvement; online communities offer additional help.
Sentiment score
6.8
Tricentis Tosca's customer service is efficient and knowledgeable, though some users experience delays and desire process improvements.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
After creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
My experience has been positive; their response to emails or phone calls in tech support is fast, usually between eight to ten hours.
Response through chat has been replaced by chatbots, which has impacted the experience.
There is no way to mark the importance or criticality of incidents when creating them.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText Functional Testing scales well with planning, though browser support and licensing issues require attention for seamless integration.
Sentiment score
7.7
ReadyAPI Test is scalable, suitable for various teams, customizable with scripting, and generally satisfies users despite some integration issues.
Sentiment score
7.3
Tricentis Tosca is praised for scalability, effectively managing concurrent tests and meeting enterprise requirements despite some cost challenges.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
It covers a breadth of applications and products, demonstrating excellent scalability that I have seen in reality.
Scalability is excellent with Tricentis Tosca.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText Functional Testing is generally reliable, but occasional stability issues arise, influenced by machine specs and implementation methods.
Sentiment score
7.1
ReadyAPI Test is stable and reliable with minor startup delays, improved from earlier versions, and highly praised for consistency.
Sentiment score
7.4
Tricentis Tosca is generally stable, with minor errors, and users highly rate its reliable automated testing capabilities.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
For performance and stability, Tricentis Tosca deserves a 10 out of 10.
The stability of Tricentis Tosca is rated ten out of ten. It is very stable.
I find stability issues when using the Vision AI feature; Tricentis Tosca is not very stable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText Functional Testing needs enhancements in object identification, performance, cost, scripting support, mobile features, and open-source tool integration.
ReadyAPI Test needs better integration, support, documentation, performance, customization, and training, along with extended trials and improved stability.
Tricentis Tosca struggles with upgrades, high costs, mobile testing difficulties, and requires improvements in AI, UI, and reporting.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
Moving to a cloud-based application rather than a desktop one could improve Tosca.
The Vision AI implementation works very slowly, affecting the speed of our work.
If a button in an application changes, Tricentis Tosca should be smart enough to detect the change and still execute the script seamlessly.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText Functional Testing is costly but cost-effective due to robust capabilities and potential reductions in manual testing efforts.
ReadyAPI Test's high pricing and licensing issues lead users to suggest bundling and discounts for better affordability and clarity.
Tricentis Tosca's pricing is high, appealing to large enterprises with flexible licensing, though costly for smaller companies.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
The pricing for Tricentis Tosca is extremely high, and I rate it as ten in terms of expense.
A yearly license costs around 20,000 euros.
For enterprise customers, the cost is manageable because it provides solutions for multiple applications they want to automate.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText Functional Testing provides extensive platform compatibility, strong object recognition, and robust automation frameworks enhancing diverse testing environments.
ReadyAPI Test is user-friendly, integrates well, supports database validations, and enables easy API, security, and UI testing with groovy scripting.
Tricentis Tosca offers model-based automation, scriptless testing, drag-and-drop functionality, and AI optimization, enhancing ease of use and integration.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier.
It allows for drag-and-drop functionality and demo automation in SAP-based applications, which can be challenging with other automation tools.
The most useful features of Tricentis Tosca include API scanning, basic web application automation, and data validation capabilities.
The modular approach reduces scripting effort by at least fifty percent, which significantly cuts down on the script development time.
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.5%, down from 9.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI Test is 0.9%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 18.4%, up from 18.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis Tosca18.4%
OpenText Functional Testing8.5%
ReadyAPI Test0.9%
Other72.2%
Functional 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…
Luis Sanchez - PeerSpot reviewer
Helps in data, regression, performance, security, and functional testing
ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution.
PrabhuKrishnamoorthy - PeerSpot reviewer
Has transformed testing by reducing scripting effort and enhancing productivity with advanced features
The self-healing feature of Tricentis Tosca needs significant improvement. Currently, it is static and not dynamic. For example, if a button in an application changes, Tricentis Tosca should be smart enough to detect the change and still execute the script seamlessly. Improvements are needed to ensure it responds dynamically to changes in the application.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
871,358 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
13%
Insurance Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise71
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise19
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise72
 

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...
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 ...
What do you like most about SoapUI Pro?
The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SoapUI Pro?
ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten.
What needs improvement with SoapUI Pro?
ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests...
How does Tricentis Tosca compare with Worksoft Certify?
Tosca fulfills our business needs better because it is an end-to-end solution across technologies. We like that it is...
What do you like most about Tricentis Tosca?
For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tricentis Tosca?
The pricing for Tricentis Tosca is extremely high, and I rate it as ten in terms of expense. It is really pricey in t...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
SoapUI NG Pro
Orchestrated Service Virtualization
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Apple, Cisco, FedEx, eBay, Microsoft, MasterCard, Pfizer, Nike, Oracle, Volvo, Lufthansa, Disney, HP, Intel, U.S. Air Force, Schindler
HBO, AMEX, BMW Group, ING, Bosch, Austrian Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Henkel, Allianz, Bank of America, UBS, Orange, Siemens, Swiss Re, Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: October 2025.
871,358 professionals have used our research since 2012.