No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Functional Testing vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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 Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd)
Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
28th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
14th
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 (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.1%, down from 8.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.8%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.1%
Telerik Test Studio1.8%
Other90.1%
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

"I support UFT as the best solution due to the skill set needed to operate the tool."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"It's allowed business analysts to work with automation scripts without requiring them to have programming knowledge."
"UFT One has helped us to reduce testing timelines, going from 15 days to certify a release during our manual testing days to achieving that within five days with automation, while also improving quality, increasing test coverage from 80 percent to over 90 percent, and helping us identify defects earlier."
"UFT is an expensive tool that can save you a lot of time and effort and provide great value for money if used correctly, but also turn out as ineffective related to value-for-money if used the wrong way."
"The return on investment for any company buying this product license is 100 percent, as businesses with clients increase productivity when manual tasks becomes faster and efficient by automating them with this tool."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"The fact that it works with a vast number of technologies works for us because our internal customers use the tool for testing a lot of different applications."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The object repository is the most valuable feature, as different elements can be identified and reutilized through the repository across other scripts, and the product has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"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."
 

Cons

"Cost is the biggest issue with UFT. It is not cheap."
"Having an Object Repository that is not stored but built through the run is the most difficult and time consuming task."
"The core application that we're using in our company is a bit special and resistant to automation."
"Because of SAP, I would rate the stability a five out of ten."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"I would like a version that works quicker. Also, a lot of people can't afford it because it's expensive."
"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."
"Getting it to interact with ALM nicely has been a challenge for us sometimes."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"The first time I customized the solution, it was quite challenging."
"We have not seen a return on investment yet."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"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."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"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."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"The price is reasonable."
"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.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Construction Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
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: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.