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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Testim comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 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
2nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th)
Testim
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
11th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
7th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

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 Testim is 3.4%, up from 2.1% 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…
Dheeraj Bavirisetty - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhancing automation skills, intuitive, and low-code
We use Testim to automate our testing scripts. I am part of the testing team for a corporate bank in the US, which is my client. We work on building their product, and Testim is used to automate the scripts since it is a low-code automation platform The feature I like most about Testim is the…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is a stable solution."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The feature I like most about Testim is the record and playback capability, which does not require writing a lot of code."
"The ease of learning and the small learning curve allowed us to scale the test scripts and the test suite quickly."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The product is easy to use."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
 

Cons

"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"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."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"The user interface could be improved"
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"In the last couple of months, I have experienced some downtime where it wasn't working."
"There is currently no room for improvement that I can identify as of now."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"Faster scripting would be beneficial, as test creation is faster now."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"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 way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"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."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"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 solution is not expensive."
"The tool offers a fixed pricing model for our company."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Educational Organization
7%
Manufacturing Company
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 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?
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...
What do you like most about Testim?
The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Testim?
I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools.
What needs improvement with Testim?
More advanced AI-based features and features on the API side would help us create better end-to-end test suites.
 

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
Microsoft, salesforce, JFrog, USA Today, Globality
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Testim and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.