OpenText Functional Testing vs Qualitia Automation Studio comparison

OpenText and Qualitia Software are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. OpenText is ranked #3 with an average rating of 7.8, while Qualitia Software is ranked #33. OpenText holds a 8.9% mindshare in TAt, compared to Qualitia Software’s 0.3% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Qualitia Software 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

Qualitia Automation Studio

Read 5 Qualitia Automation Studio reviews

324 Views
243 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Qualitia Automation Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and Qualitia Automation Studio compete in the software testing domain. Based on data, Qualitia Automation Studio seems to have the upper hand due to its innovative features and enhanced productivity.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing provides strong integration with enterprise applications and efficient test execution capabilities. Qualitia Automation Studio offers a scriptless testing approach that accelerates test case creation, enhances team collaboration, and streamlines the testing process.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is known for its comprehensive support and documented deployment processes. Qualitia Automation Studio provides quicker deployment, efficient customer service, and a smoother onboarding experience.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing offers competitive setup costs and strong ROI with extensive support. Qualitia Automation Studio requires a slightly higher initial investment but delivers greater ROI by significantly reducing test cycle time and offering enhanced productivity.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing vs. Qualitia Automation Studio Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. Qualitia Automation Studio

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 868,229 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

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

3rd

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)

Qualitia Automation Studio

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

33rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.9%, down from 10.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualitia Automation Studio is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Automation Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	8.9%
Qualitia Automation Studio	0.3%
Other	90.8%

Test Automation Tools

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

Suvardhana Yathiraj

Head Of Solutions at Test Yantra Software Solutions

Testing automation solution that is scriptless and is competitively priced compared to other solutions

The best feature of this solution is the fact that it offers scriptless automation. You don't need to know how to code or program to use it. Within four weeks, my team was up and running. This was the shortest possible ramp-up that we completed in my entire career The integrations for this…

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

"The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool."

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

"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."

"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."

"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."

"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."

"It offers a wide range of testing."

"It's simple to set up."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

"The best feature of this solution is the fact that it offers scriptless automation. You don't need to know how to code or program to use it."

Cons

"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."

"The solution is expensive."

"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."

"The user interface could be improved"

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

"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."

"We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing."

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

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

"The integrations for this solutions could be improved, specifically for Slack."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

"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."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

"Pricing is on a higher end but the competition was even more expensive. With this considered, it is a competitive solution."

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

868,229 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

11%

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

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...

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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

Tricentis Tosca vs Qualitia Automation Studio

Compared 25% of the time

Selenium HQ vs Qualitia Automation Studio

Compared 22% of the time

More Qualitia Automation Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

September 2025

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

September 2025

Download Qualitia Automation Studio 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

Qualitia gives you simple step wise approach to quickly build your test automation and handle complexities easily with its unique scriptless approach. Qualitia gives you smart alerts and analysis to adopt changes effectively, making it agile friendly.

Qualitia Software

Sample Customers

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

Springer, PTC, ZS, Shaadi.com, JDA, Cbazaar

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. Qualitia Automation Studio

July 2025

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing vs. Qualitia Automation Studio

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Qualitia Automation Studio and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

868,229 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Functional Testing vs. Qualitia Automation Studio report.

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.