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

OpenText Functional Testing vs SmartBear TestComplete Mobile comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (4th), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (5th)
SmartBear TestComplete Mobile
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 16.6%, down from 26.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete Mobile is 2.0%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing16.6%
SmartBear TestComplete Mobile2.0%
Other81.4%
Mobile App 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.
AhmedAllalen - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"OpenText Functional Testing has an impressive ability to connect to mobile devices and its ability to test so many different types of software, whether it be mainframe, APIs, mobile, web, or desktop."
"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"It's simple to set up."
"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

"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."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"The solution is expensive."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"It is very difficult to use the aliases on old software."
"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."
"There are complaints about not detecting all objects in the browser."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's an expensive solution."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"The price is reasonable."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"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."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
5%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise71
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 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?
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 needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete Mobile?
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 un...
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 ...
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.
 

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
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.