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

"The stop automation is a great feature that is not generally supported by other solutions."
"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."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"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."
"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"SmartBear API Hub has positively impacted my organization by improving API quality, reducing manual testing efforts, and enabling faster feedback through test automation."
"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."
"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."
"SmartBear API Hub has positively impacted my organization by significantly improving productivity."
 

Cons

"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"I would like a version that works quicker. Also, a lot of people can't afford it because it's expensive."
"UFT is rather slow in execution, and that’s something that needs to improve."
"We would like to see smart identification (captures a unique object during testing) work more reliably."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"Cost is the biggest issue with UFT. It is not cheap."
"Improvement could be made in the cost of the solution and the support time involved in solving issues."
"In cases of longer tests (in forms of so-called Mega Scripts), there can be a seriously huge usage of virtual memory by UFT that can lead to SystemOutOfMemory exceptions which are showstoppers and a huge annoyance."
"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."
"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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool's price is high."
"It's an expensive solution."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"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 pricing of the product is an issue."
"The price is reasonable."
"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."
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.