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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Selenium HQ vs Visual Studio Test Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText Functional Testing automates tasks, reducing testing time and costs, yielding significant long-term ROI and system compatibility.
Sentiment score
6.6
Selenium HQ reduces testing time, increases ROI, and offers cost-efficient automation, despite needing skilled users for optimal performance.
Sentiment score
7.3
Visual Studio Test Professional boosts productivity and ROI, enhancing development speed and quality, while varying ROI across companies.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.1
OpenText Functional Testing support is mixed, with responsive service but potential delays and escalations for technical issues.
Sentiment score
6.0
Selenium HQ's open-source model means no official support, but extensive community resources offer effective help for troubleshooting.
Sentiment score
7.1
Visual Studio Test Professional's support is well-rated for responsiveness, knowledgeable staff, and helpful resources, despite navigation challenges.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
The marketplace community and forums are what we browse and look after, and we have found solutions whenever we tried to find anything.
I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.
Sometimes, the documentation is not readable, being too long or too detailed and not connected to my problem.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText Functional Testing scales well with planning, though browser support and licensing issues require attention for seamless integration.
Sentiment score
7.4
Selenium HQ is scalable and efficient for large scenarios, though hardware and configuration can impact performance.
Sentiment score
7.5
Visual Studio Test Professional is highly scalable, effectively supporting various team sizes and projects despite cost and infrastructure considerations.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText Functional Testing is generally reliable, but occasional stability issues arise, influenced by machine specs and implementation methods.
Sentiment score
7.0
Selenium HQ is stable across platforms, with minor issues in Internet Explorer; most find Chrome and Firefox satisfactory.
Sentiment score
7.9
Visual Studio Test Professional is generally stable, with updates enhancing reliability, though occasional performance issues are reported.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
Selenium HQ is a scalable solution; it has been in production for the last two years, but I have been working on it for the last six years, so it is definitely scalable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText Functional Testing needs enhancements in object identification, performance, cost, scripting support, mobile features, and open-source tool integration.
Selenium HQ requires better browser support, enhanced reporting, frequent updates, mobile testing, improved documentation, and user-friendly features.
Visual Studio Test Professional needs improved performance, integration, usability, compatibility, and support for automation and web application testing.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
An automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
I don't know if we have that capability to provide different data sources such as SQL Server, CSV, or maybe some other databases, so that kind of capability would be great.
The product needs contextual help integrated within its interface.
Sometimes, the library version is not compatible with other libraries, causing errors in my application.
The Git extensions are very basic and can be more extensive compared to other software focused on Git, like GitTower or SmartGit.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText Functional Testing is costly but cost-effective due to robust capabilities and potential reductions in manual testing efforts.
Selenium HQ is a cost-effective, open-source tool, though additional expenses may arise for maintenance, implementation, and expertise.
Visual Studio Test Professional is costly but offers competitive value, priced at $52 monthly per user, with multi-user discounts.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The price is expensive.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText Functional Testing provides extensive platform compatibility, strong object recognition, and robust automation frameworks enhancing diverse testing environments.
Selenium HQ provides cost-free, adaptable, cross-platform testing with customization, CI tool compatibility, and a supportive community.
Visual Studio Test Professional excels in code testing, user interface, integration, debugging, and scalability for efficient software development.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
The best features of OpenText Functional Testing include descriptive programming, the ability to add objects in the repository, and its ease of use for UI compared to other tools.
Selenium HQ supports multiple browsers via grid hosting and offers dynamic configuration setup for testing across Chrome, Edge, and Internet Explorer.
When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline.
Visual Studio Test Professional is highly valuable because it provides extensive extensions and plugins that assist in measuring code quality.
It supports cross-platform functionality.
 

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 Selenium HQ is 3.5%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Visual Studio Test Professional is 0.8%, up from 0.6% 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…
Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
CharlesChang - PeerSpot reviewer
Valuable performance and libraries but needs compatibility improvements
We use Visual Studio Test Professional to develop our internal applications for our company The performance of Visual Studio Test Professional is valuable. Additionally, there are many libraries that I can use, and it supports cross-platform functionality. Visual Studio Test Professional is…
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
18%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
10%
Performing Arts
9%
 

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...
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 ...
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interf...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
What do you like most about Visual Studio Test Professional?
The most valuable features of the solution are its ease of use and availability.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Visual Studio Test Professional?
The tool is free, resulting in no costs associated with its use. The absence of price makes it cost-effective.
What needs improvement with Visual Studio Test Professional?
The product needs contextual help integrated within its interface. Currently, I need to search online to find out how...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
SeleniumHQ
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Transport for Greater Manchester, Ordina, Bluegarden A/S, CLEAResult, Jet.com, OSIsoft, Australian Taxation Office, BookedOut, Tracasa
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: July 2025.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.