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

OpenText Functional Testing vs TestingWhiz 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
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
TestingWhiz
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
37th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
19th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.7%, up from 8.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TestingWhiz is 1.0%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.7%
TestingWhiz1.0%
Other90.3%
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.
VS
Test Associate & Manager at Opus Technologies
Low code features and good customization but needs more customer-requested features
We utilized the solution to showcase our capabilities to customers or clients, and demonstrate how it can save money and achieve a return on investment through automation The organization was able to provide customers with business solutions by giving demos of various tools, assisting in securing…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"As with any test automation tool, the ability to run repeatable tests unattended during off hours saves lots of manual testing hours."
"It's allowed business analysts to work with automation scripts without requiring them to have programming knowledge."
"The most valuable features are the API testing, the integration with DevOps and accessibility to people without a lot of technical skill."
"I like the direction the solution is heading and am really happy with how they keep adding new features."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"Its ease-of-use; it doesn’t take long to train staff on it, and our third-party script developers find it easy to up-skill staff to use UFT."
"Its ease of use means we've been able to ramp up non-technical users and have them understand how to do general debugging very easily."
"For the QTP/UFT projects I have worked on ROI is always over 300% in the long term."
"TestingWhiz is a low code, no code tool with integration facilities, such as with Jira, and can be used over the cloud."
 

Cons

"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased."
"The solution is 70-80% stable. Stability really depends on the servers or the license which we have installed."
"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"Additionally, there are hanging issues where it becomes unresponsive, which can be improved."
"When debugging code in UFT, it would crash, freeze and hang a lot."
"When I ran the script for two or three times sequentially, the tool hung and wouldn’t respond."
"The core application that we're using in our company is a bit special and resistant to automation."
"Some features need to be implemented based on customer customization requests, which are currently not available."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's an expensive solution."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"The tool's price is high."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
No data available
 

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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for TestingWhiz?
It is cheaper compared to other tools. The tool is web-based with various licenses, including professional and enterprise editions.
What needs improvement with TestingWhiz?
Some features need to be implemented based on customer customization requests, which are currently not available. Additionally, there is a need to improve the handling of less critical issues which...
What is your primary use case for TestingWhiz?
We utilized the solution to showcase our capabilities to customers or clients, and demonstrate how it can save money and achieve a return on investment through automation.
 

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
Verizon, IBM, Symantec, VMware, Hyundai, Choice Hotels, Intel, Autodesk, Frost
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Worksoft and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: November 2026.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.