OpenText Functional Testing vs TestProject [EOL] comparison

OpenText and Tricentis are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. Additionally, 87% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 71% of Tricentis users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 97 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,360 Views
6,604 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

TestProject [EOL]

Read 6 TestProject [EOL] reviews

71% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

TestProject [EOL]

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and TestProject [EOL] compete in the automated testing tools category. OpenText seems to have the upper hand due to its comprehensive integration support and versatility in technology coverage, catering especially to large enterprises with complex needs.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers support for a wide range of technologies and browsers, enhancing test automation. It integrates well with ALM for GUI and API testing, making it suitable for large-scale testing scenarios. TestProject [EOL], although praised for its user-friendly and scriptless automation capabilities, was limited in integration support.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could improve on memory usage, stability issues, and a simpler licensing model. Better browser compatibility and integration with CI/CD pipelines are also suggested. TestProject [EOL] struggled with cross-browser compatibility and reliability post-EOL, and needed improvements in reporting clarity and integration support.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText provides flexible deployment options, both on-premises and cloud, though some users report slow support. TestProject [EOL], offering on-premises and cloud options, had limited customer support primarily due to its open-source open-source nature before being discontinued.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText is considered costly with complex licensing but delivers significant ROI through productivity and comprehensive test coverage, especially for large setups. TestProject [EOL], initially free and open-source, offered excellent ROI for budget-conscious users despite its EOL status.

To learn more, read our detailed Test Automation Tools Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,676 peers since 2012

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

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)

TestProject [EOL]

Average Rating

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Featured Reviews

Badari Mallireddy

QA Automation Architect at Emerson

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…

Read full review

Ashu Singh

Senior quality analyst at Lalli

An easy-to-use tool that saves time and functions within a limited budget

The solution's reporting system should be clearer and easier to understand for a layperson. I and some other experts may be able to understand the solution's reporting system, but a layperson won't understand it. For a layperson, the solution should be easy to use. Price-wise, TestProject is an expensive product. The product's current price should be lowered to attract potential customers.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."

"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."

"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."

"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."

"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."

"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."

"The stop automation is a great feature."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

"Ability to carry out automatic testing without having coding knowledge."

"The ease of web and mobile functional testing is pretty easy on TestProject."

"Since implementing this solution, our code management has been reduced by 40% to 60%."

"The automation and AI are very good."

"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."

"The script-less part of it was good for novice users."

Cons

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."

"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."

"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."

"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."

"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."

"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."

"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."

"The initial setup is complex."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

"Difficult trying to configure on more than one browser."

"In an upcoming release, there should be a SaaS offering available."

"We'd like to see a direct cloud from TestProject instead of some other third party."

"TestProject needs better support for integration with other products to provide a better overall solution for test planning and test data management."

"I and some other experts may be able to understand the solution's reporting system, but a layperson won't understand it."

"The support is a weak point since they discontinued the tool."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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.""

"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."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"The tool's price is high."

"It's an expensive solution."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"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 of the product is an issue."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

"The solution is free."

"Price-wise, TestProject is an expensive product...With TestProject, there is a need to pay a certain amount towards its licensing costs."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

867,676 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

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	12
Large Enterprise	71

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	2
Large Enterprise	1

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What do you like most about TestProject?

The script-less part of it was good for novice users.

See all answers

What needs improvement with TestProject?

The support is a weak point since they discontinued the tool. They went commercial, and most of our work wasn't useful anymore. The support or the transition plans for people who were already using...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for TestProject?

We have a mobile app that we need to build regression testing packs, and we spent almost a year building quite a few test cases for automated testing on that mobile app so that they can run every d...

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 26% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 12% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

No data available

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

August 2025

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

TestProject [EOL]

August 2025

Download TestProject [EOL] product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

No data available

Overview

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

TestProject is a free end-to-end test automation platform for web, mobile, and API testing that’s supported by the #1 test automation community.

Tricentis

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

IBM, Wix, Flir, Payoneer

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

September 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, UiPath, OpenText and others in Test Automation Tools. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Automation Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.