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 Sep 21, 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 September 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.8%, down from 9.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Testim is 3.4%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.8%
Testim3.4%
Other87.8%
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

"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The feature I like most about Testim is the record and playback capability, which does not require writing a lot of code."
"I have seen reduced maintenance due to smart locators, as it automatically finds locators for us even with minor application changes."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"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."
 

Cons

"The user interface could be improved"
"UFT still requires some coding."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"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."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"In the last couple of months, I have experienced some downtime where it wasn't working."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"Faster scripting would be beneficial, as test creation is faster now."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"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."
"There is currently no room for improvement that I can identify as of now."
"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 an expensive solution."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"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."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools."
"The tool offers a fixed pricing model for our company."
"The solution is not expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
867,826 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Educational Organization
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise71
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise4
 

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: August 2025.
867,826 professionals have used our research since 2012.