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

OpenText Functional Testing vs SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) 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
7.2
SonarQube Server boosts productivity, stability, and security through effective code analysis and vulnerability assessment, enhancing development processes.
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.
I have seen a return on the investment from SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) because the value it adds relates to static code analysis and vulnerability assessments needed for our FDA approval process.
We see productivity increasing based on the fact that the code review is mostly automated, allowing the developer to fix the code themselves before assigning it to someone else to review, thus receiving that ROI.
 

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
6.2
SonarQube Server's support is valued for community resources and documentation, though free version technical support is limited.
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.
They showed us where we can actually get those granular level reporting extracted for Excel, which was a quick guide.
I would rate the technical support for SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) as a 10 because we have not faced any specific issues that required us to contact tech support, which is a very rare case.
The community support is quite effective.
 

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
7.1
SonarQube Server efficiently scales for various user volumes and project sizes, though infrastructure demands may rise in physical setups.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
I find SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) very scalable because we're able to create a new repository and integrate all the tools on that project and it just works.
I would rate the scalability of SonarQube Server as a 10 because we can configure the server to scan multiple projects based on the number of lines.
 

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
7.7
SonarQube Server is highly reliable, stable with minor issues often related to plugins or environments, and rarely crashes.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
I think SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) is stable, and we did not face any problems unless there was a power outage or if the LAN cable was plugged out.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText Functional Testing needs enhancements in object identification, performance, cost, scripting support, mobile features, and open-source tool integration.
SonarQube Server needs better issue detection, usability, language support, integration, customizable features, and AI-driven dynamic testing enhancements.
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.
Currently, it should also be able to analyze the code and generate and fix the code for specific developers or features that the developers are tracking.
If I fix some vulnerabilities today, they reappear in the next scan, and there will be completely different issues that need to be fixed.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText Functional Testing is costly but cost-effective due to robust capabilities and potential reductions in manual testing efforts.
SonarQube Server provides cost-effective solutions for code quality, with competitive pricing and enhanced features for various project sizes.
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.
I would rate the pricing for SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) as an 8, where 1 is very cheap and 10 is very expensive, because Coverity is very expensive, and while SonarQube is not cheap, it is still less expensive than Coverity.
They always offer around a two-year contract, but we always take a one-year contract because it's expensive.
The freemium version of SonarQube Server offers excellent value, especially compared to the high costs of Snyk.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText Functional Testing provides extensive platform compatibility, strong object recognition, and robust automation frameworks enhancing diverse testing environments.
SonarQube Server enhances code quality with language support, CI/CD integration, insightful dashboards, and an intuitive interface.
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.
We use SonarQube Server's centralized management and visualization of code quality metrics on the dashboard because that's the executive dashboard that we send to the executives to show where we are in terms of quality, security, and where the company can improve.
Some of the static code analysis capabilities are the most beneficial.
The most valuable features of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) for us include having control of the rules, enabling and disabling them.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Functional Testing
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)
SonarQube Server (formerly ...
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
116
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (1st), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (1st), Software Development Analytics (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Application Lifecycle Management solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Functional Testing is designed for Functional Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 9.4%, down 9.5% compared to last year.
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube), on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 22.7% mindshare, down 26.7% since last year.
Functional Testing Tools
Application Security 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…
Sthembiso Zondi - PeerSpot reviewer
Consistent improvements in code quality and security with effective integration and reliable technical support
The features of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) that I find most useful are the suggestions received from reviewing the code. When they review the code, they provide suggestions on how to fix it, and we find those very useful from a development perspective. We use SonarQube Server's (formerly SonarQube) centralized management and visualization of code quality metrics on the dashboard because that's the executive dashboard that we send to the executives to show where we are in terms of quality, security, and where the company can improve. We use that for organizational improvement purposes. The ability to tailor metrics tracking in SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) has been beneficial to my team. There are team-specific dashboards which are related to specific repositories they utilize, and we have that aggregative dashboard that shows the whole organization's performance. We can drill down per specific repository, which makes it easier for the team to improve specific things.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
863,429 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%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
6%
 

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 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...
Is SonarQube the best tool for static analysis?
I am not very familiar with SonarQube and their solutions, so I can not answer. But if you are asking me about which tools that are the best for for Static Code Analysis, I suggest you have a look...
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
How would you decide between Coverity and Sonarqube?
We researched Coverity, but in the end, we chose SonarQube. SonarQube is a tool for reviewing code quality and security. It helps to guide our development teams during code reviews by providing rem...
 

Also Known As

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

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: July 2025.
863,429 professionals have used our research since 2012.