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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Telerik Test Studio 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 Functional Testing Tools
4th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (5th)
Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
24th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
11th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
24th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (14th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 6.2%, down from 10.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.7%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing6.2%
Telerik Test Studio1.7%
Other92.1%
Functional 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.
Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Project Management at Capgemini
Very good performance and load testing capabilities
There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"The best features of OpenText Functional Testing include descriptive programming, the ability to add objects in the repository, and its ease of use for UI compared to other tools."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
 

Cons

"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is reasonable."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"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."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
8%
Retailer
5%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
University
8%
 

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 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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

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
Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.