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

OpenText Functional Testing vs SmartBear TestComplete 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
6.8
SmartBear TestComplete automation saves time, enhances client satisfaction, and boosts efficiency, with annual savings of approximately $10,000.
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.
Once set up, only one person is needed to handle all tasks, reducing the requirement for multiple personnel.
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
6.9
SmartBear TestComplete's customer support is knowledgeable but inconsistent, with delays and unresolved issues needing faster escalation and responses.
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Response through chat has been replaced by chatbots, which has impacted the experience.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
7.4
SmartBear TestComplete is scalable and adaptable, with flexible scripting, but may require licensing for wider deployment.
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
6.9
SmartBear TestComplete generally stable, but users report crashes, memory leaks, and HTML5 testing delays in certain scenarios.
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.
SmartBear TestComplete faces challenges in object recognition, integrations, licensing, performance, and support across browsers and mobile devices.
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.
While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to improve some performance aspects, especially the image comparison feature.
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.
SmartBear TestComplete's pricing and licensing receive mixed reviews, seen as both reasonable and costly depending on usage and modules.
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.
SmartBear TestComplete excels in cross-platform automation, integration, and support for multiple languages, enhancing automated testing efficiency and maintenance.
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.
The most valuable feature of SmartBear TestComplete for me is the image comparison functionality.
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 August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 9.2%, down from 9.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.9%, down from 5.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 18.9%, up from 17.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
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…
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.
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.
865,164 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
6%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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 SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to imp...
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
No data available
Orchestrated Service Virtualization
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
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: August 2025.
865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.