OpenText Functional Testing vs SmartBear TestComplete Mobile comparison

OpenText and SmartBear are both solutions in the Mobile App Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.8, while SmartBear is ranked #11 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText holds a 21.9% mindshare in MTT, compared to SmartBear’s 0.9% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of SmartBear users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 97 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,409 Views
3,280 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

SmartBear TestComplete Mobile

Read 3 SmartBear TestComplete Mobile reviews

155 Views
110 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

SmartBear TestComplete Mobile

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and SmartBear TestComplete Mobile compete in software testing tools. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile seems to have the upper hand with its advanced features.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers powerful test automation, advanced scripting support, and integration with other tools. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile provides versatile cross-platform testing, ease of use, and mobile testing flexibility.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing provides a straightforward implementation process with supportive customer service. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile offers a well-documented deployment model and effective customer support.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing presents a cost-efficient solution with lower initial costs. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile requires a higher initial investment but is considered valuable over time.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing vs. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,384 peers since 2012

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 Mobile App Testing Tools

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)

SmartBear TestComplete Mobile

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

11th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 21.9%, down from 26.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete Mobile is 0.9%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Mobile App Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Badari Mallireddy

QA Automation Architect at Emerson

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…

Read full review

AhmedAllalen

Development team leader / APPR at a government with 501-1,000 employees

Clicking playback and detecting application needs improves functionality

There are complaints about not detecting all objects in the browser. I have to check and verify, and sometimes I have to bypass certain steps, which is a problem. I need to check the solution to understand why it's too detailed to detect or think of the browser. I use Chrome. Sometimes in Chrome, it doesn't detect certain elements in the web application. That's the problem. Also, when I run tests, I cannot export different types of logs in the same document. When I run different tests, it provides different logs, and these logs cannot be put in the same document. I have to compile them manually. Additionally, the tool can manage WinRamp scripts. I would say SilkTest also allows me to run tests, and I can challenge the sequencing, but it doesn't always do this correctly.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."

"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."

"It is a stable solution."

"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."

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

"I like that it offers internal methods for supported controls. It is very easy to code the tests. Object Spy is also a good feature."

"The features I find most valuable is the automatic remapping of aliases, because it is really helpful."

"It is very effective for detecting breaks and also for verifying the needs of the application before deploying it or when introducing a new product."

Cons

"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."

"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."

"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."

"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."

"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."

"The user interface could be improved"

"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."

"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

"There are complaints about not detecting all objects in the browser."

"The mapping is pretty complicated because there are a lot of controls that are the same and if you have a long name with the object mapping it is easy to get confused."

"It is very difficult to use the aliases on old software."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

"It's an expensive solution."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

Information not available

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

19%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

12%

Government

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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 public repository when using Object Spy and adding objects, as it currently stor...

See all answers

What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete Mobile?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for SmartBear TestComplete Mobile?

The application is smaller than the transaction applications. It's a very delicate, complex application. Now I use it, however, it's just a test function for functional testing. I use TestComplete ...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering SmartBear TestComplete Mobile?

It's straightforward to use. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 26% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 11% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Eggplant Test vs SmartBear TestComplete Mobile

Compared 100% of the time

More SmartBear TestComplete Mobile Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

August 2025

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

Mobile App Testing Tools

August 2025

Download SmartBear TestComplete Mobile product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

No data available

Overview

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

AUTOMATE UI TESTING FOR ANY IOS OR ANDROID APP

Use script-free record and replay or choose from six languages, including Python and JavaScript, to create test automation scripts. Record repeatable and consistent gestures across any mobile device. Get full device control when creating automated UI tests. There is no modify or jail-break the app.

Separate the UI object identification from the test logic to build stable, easy-to-maintain automated tests. Seamless integration available with build server, source control systems, and defect management tools allows you to run automated mobile UI tests around the clock.

SmartBear

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile

July 2025

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing vs. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Functional Testing vs. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile report.

See our list of best Mobile App Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Mobile App Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.