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

OpenText Functional Testing vs SmartBear API Hub 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 API Testing Tools
3rd
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 (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
SmartBear API Hub
Ranking in API Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
5.2
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the API Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 15.6%, up from 11.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear API Hub is 1.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing15.6%
SmartBear API Hub1.5%
Other82.9%
API 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.
AKSHAYRATHI - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior engineer at Nagarro
Automated API and database regression testing has reduced resources and improved insurance validation
I have noticed some errors regarding the connection with Bitbucket or Git. It generally takes some time in SmartBear and ReadyAPI. From the testing perspective, it saves a lot of time because it covered a whole regression suite with database and data-driven testing. It generally saves us time from fetching the values manually from UI. Instead, you can run your regression suite on a daily or weekly basis. This helps us to identify some errors as well as saves us time. There is a delay in connection with SmartBear API Hub; sometimes the connection is lost between the Bitbucket and ReadyAPI. When we try to reconnect those from the properties level, from the setting level, it generally takes a lot of time. This perspective can be improved with the Bitbucket and Git connection. We can also integrate a particular framework in ReadyAPI itself so that we can also run our Selenium code from the UI automation perspective. Right now, we are currently using that feature, but it requires framework-level changes. We can provide it to every user so that users can easily run their Selenium scripts, fetch the APIs, and validate the database. This helps us to create one-to-one end-to-end flow for the purpose of testing. We can enhance that feature and we can also enhance the Git functionality because we are using Sourcetree as well for connecting Bitbucket and ReadyAPI in order to push and pull our changes. That particular functionality takes a lot of time. Sometimes the changes that we have made in our regression suite are not reflecting on the recent changes in ReadyAPI. This is sometimes difficult to track and takes a lot of time to refresh that. I would say we should enhance the UI automation feature and we can also enhance the Git connection feature as well.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's a fine solution with good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The process has helped my organization greatly reduce time and cost when it comes to testing a new project."
"It helps us consolidate our efforts."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"UFT is extremely stable."
"UFT is an expensive tool that can save you a lot of time and effort and provide great value for money if used correctly, but also turn out as ineffective related to value-for-money if used the wrong way."
"For the QTP/UFT projects I have worked on ROI is always over 300% in the long term."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The free version provided a significant return on investment, especially compared to the cost of other tools, and I would say the user-friendly interface contributed to faster delivery."
"SmartBear API Hub has positively impacted my organization as it helps to create our regression suite as well as connection with Jenkins to run smoke testing and regression settings, it saves a lot of time and it is one tool for every testing."
"SmartBear API Hub has positively impacted my organization by significantly improving productivity."
"SmartBear API Hub has positively impacted my organization by improving API quality, reducing manual testing efforts, and enabling faster feedback through test automation."
"Having a single source of truth for API contracts makes it easier to understand the request and response schemas, keeps automation test cases aligned with the API changes, and reduces misunderstandings during the development and testing cycle."
"I want to add that the best part was we got one single platform where we can do everything from governance to contract validation to development to testing in a single tool rather than hopping from one tool to another, and I guess that's the best feature anybody can think of."
"Again, as I have mentioned multiple times, it has made API design, documentation, and collaboration much easier and much more organized, and it also saves a lot of time for the developers, for architects, for testers, for everybody who is using that."
"Since adopting SmartBear API Hub, the efficiency in collaboration across the development, QA, and product teams has really improved because everyone works from the same API specification."
 

Cons

"HP has a policy that software updates for the QTP/UFT products are only available to licensed users with a service agreement. However this policy extends beyond version upgrades to software patches, and the problem this poses is that any potential customer that downloads the tool for use with a 30-day trial license must work with an unpatched version that is often less stable than the patched version in use by licensed long-term customers."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"The initial setup is complex."
"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 UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased."
"The problem with the solution is that you need to have highly specialized skills in order to make the scripts."
"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."
"Yes, there were stability issues sometimes."
"SmartBear API Hub can be improved, as every product has challenges."
"SmartBear API Hub could be improved, particularly in terms of features or usability aspects."
"I would want to see user experience enhanced, as navigating a large collection of APIs can sometimes be challenging."
"The main challenge we faced was that the native data transformation tools felt a bit limited for heavy work."
"Sometimes the connection is lost between the Bitbucket and ReadyAPI and when we try to reconnect those from the properties level, from the setting level, it generally takes a lot of time."
"One area for improvement in SmartBear API Hub could be the overall user experience and navigation, especially in larger organizations with many endpoints and projects."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
5%
No data available
 

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
Large Enterprise8
 

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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear API Hub?
The free version of the product was very useful, and we did not need to get a license due to project limitations, making it very effective for completing our tasks.
What needs improvement with SmartBear API Hub?
I cannot provide feedback on areas for improvement since my last use was back in 2015 or 2016. However, I believe dropdown features in some tools should be in place, even though I do not have speci...
What is your primary use case for SmartBear API Hub?
The main use case for SmartBear API Hub was API testing and validation. I was working on some internal projects where I integrated APIs needed for a product, enabling an end-to-end integration of A...
 

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
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. SmartBear API Hub and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.