Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
OpenText Functional Testing Logo

Top 10 OpenText Functional Testing Alternatives

Vendor: OpenText
4.0 out of 5
Badge Leader
4,376 followers
Start review

Top OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to OpenText Functional Testing based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, and Apache JMeter. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. OpenText Functional Testing surpasses its competitors by offering seamless integration, robust scripting, and comprehensive test management, ensuring reliable and efficient automation processes while supporting a broad range of applications for enhanced testing capabilities.

OpenText Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with OpenText, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Tricentis Tosca
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Tricentis Tosca
4.1 out of 5
OpenText UFT provides wide environment support with comprehensive testing options, ideal for users needing advanced object recognition and multiple scripting languages. In comparison, Tricentis Tosca offers scriptless automation and model-based testing, appealing to those seeking ease of use and flexibility in deployment.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Tricentis Tosca Report
OpenText Functional Testing involves setup costs, while Tricentis Tosca also has setup costs but is often cited for a quicker setup process. This highlights a potential efficiency advantage for Tricentis Tosca.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing involves setup costs, while Tricentis Tosca also has setup costs but is often cited for a quicker setup process. This highlights a potential efficiency advantage for Tricentis Tosca.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Katalon Studio
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Katalon Studio
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing excels with extensive features for complex environments and enterprise tool integration. In comparison, Katalon Studio offers simplicity and flexibility, appealing to non-technical users with quick onboarding and minimal coding while providing cost-effective automation.
Download Katalon Studio vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report
OpenText Functional Testing typically involves higher setup costs compared to Katalon Studio, which offers more budget-friendly options for initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing typically involves higher setup costs compared to Katalon Studio, which offers more budget-friendly options for initial setup.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Apache JMeter
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Apache JMeter
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing offers extensive integration capabilities for diverse technologies, making it suitable for comprehensive automation tasks. In comparison, Apache JMeter's open-source model and ease of use provide affordable testing options, especially favorable for budget-conscious projects seeking performance and load testing solutions.
Download Apache JMeter vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report
OpenText Functional Testing involves significant setup costs, whereas Apache JMeter is free to set up, highlighting a clear cost advantage for JMeter in terms of initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing involves significant setup costs, whereas Apache JMeter is free to set up, highlighting a clear cost advantage for JMeter in terms of initial investment.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
BrowserStack
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
BrowserStack
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing excels in flexibility, integrating across environments with complex testing needs. In comparison, BrowserStack offers extensive cross-platform testing and device access, appealing for global testing environments. OpenText's capabilities justify its pricing, while BrowserStack's plans cater to varied business sizes.
Download BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report
OpenText Functional Testing has a costly setup compared to BrowserStack, which offers more affordable initial expenses, highlighting the significant pricing difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a costly setup compared to BrowserStack, which offers more affordable initial expenses, highlighting the significant pricing difference between the two solutions.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Postman
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Postman
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing offers extensive browser support and robust Excel integration, making it ideal for comprehensive cross-platform testing. In comparison, Postman specializes in API testing with features like collections and smooth integration with CI/CD pipelines, catering to automation-focused teams.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Postman Report
OpenText Functional Testing involves higher setup costs than Postman, providing an advanced testing environment. By contrast, Postman offers a more budget-friendly setup suitable for teams requiring essential API testing features.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing involves higher setup costs than Postman, providing an advanced testing environment. By contrast, Postman offers a more budget-friendly setup suitable for teams requiring essential API testing features.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
SmartBear TestComplete
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing offers extensive compatibility with various applications and environments, supporting complex test automation needs. In comparison, SmartBear TestComplete excels in integration capabilities and ease of use but requires enhancement in dynamic object recognition and mobile testing.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. SmartBear TestComplete Report
OpenText Functional Testing has a significantly higher initial setup cost, while SmartBear TestComplete offers a more budget-friendly setup, making it a more accessible choice for those prioritizing cost-efficiency.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a significantly higher initial setup cost, while SmartBear TestComplete offers a more budget-friendly setup, making it a more accessible choice for those prioritizing cost-efficiency.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Perfecto
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Perfecto
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing supports extensive automation across various platforms including Oracle and SAP. In comparison, Perfecto excels in mobile and cross-platform testing with cloud-based capabilities. OpenText's high ownership cost contrasts with Perfecto's competitive pricing, particularly for private cloud settings.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Perfecto Report
OpenText Functional Testing has a more involved setup process; however, Perfecto offers a streamlined setup, attracting users seeking efficiency.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a more involved setup process; however, Perfecto offers a streamlined setup, attracting users seeking efficiency.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Selenium HQ
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Selenium HQ
4.0 out of 5
OpenText UFT One offers broad technology support and high execution speed, suiting complex, multi-application testing. In comparison, Selenium HQ provides cost-effective flexibility with multi-language support, ideal for diverse web application testing needs.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Selenium HQ Report
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher setup cost compared to Selenium HQ, which is known for its cost-effectiveness. Choosing between them depends on weighing comprehensive features against budget constraints.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher setup cost compared to Selenium HQ, which is known for its cost-effectiveness. Choosing between them depends on weighing comprehensive features against budget constraints.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Sauce Labs
4.4 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Sauce Labs
4.4 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing supports diverse technologies with strong ALM integration, ideal for Windows-heavy environments. In comparison, Sauce Labs offers extensive cross-browser testing and mobile support, appealing for cloud-based scalability. Each excels in different deployment preferences, catering to distinct organizational needs.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Sauce Labs Report
OpenText Functional Testing requires a higher setup cost compared to Sauce Labs, which offers a more budget-friendly initial setup, highlighting a notable difference in upfront expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing requires a higher setup cost compared to Sauce Labs, which offers a more budget-friendly initial setup, highlighting a notable difference in upfront expenses.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Eggplant Test
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Eggplant Test
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing supports diverse applications and advanced browser compatibility, ideal for extensive environments. In comparison, Eggplant Test excels in image recognition and OCR, providing technology-independent automation. OpenText is favored for Oracle and SAP, while Eggplant suits varied platforms with visual automation.
Download Eggplant Test vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report
OpenText Functional Testing requires a higher initial setup cost compared to Eggplant Test, which offers a more affordable entry point. These pricing differences reflect their distinct approaches to functional testing and automation solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing requires a higher initial setup cost compared to Eggplant Test, which offers a more affordable entry point. These pricing differences reflect their distinct approaches to functional testing and automation solutions.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
LambdaTest
4.3 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
LambdaTest
4.3 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing supports enterprise-scale automation with extensive integration options. In comparison, LambdaTest offers cloud flexibility and accessible pricing. OpenText suits environments needing robust platform support, while LambdaTest attracts those seeking ease of deployment and cost-effective SaaS solutions.
Download LambdaTest vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report
OpenText Functional Testing incurs a higher setup cost, while LambdaTest offers a more budget-friendly setup, highlighting a significant price difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing incurs a higher setup cost, while LambdaTest offers a more budget-friendly setup, highlighting a significant price difference between the two solutions.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Worksoft Certify
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Worksoft Certify
4.2 out of 5
OpenText excels in GUI, API, and database testing for diverse technologies, appealing to environments needing broad compatibility. In comparison, Worksoft Certify offers codeless automation for SAP, favored by users with minimal technical skills for its modularity in SAP-centric processes.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Worksoft Certify Report
OpenText Functional Testing has a lower setup cost, while Worksoft Certify requires a higher initial investment, highlighting a key distinction between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a lower setup cost, while Worksoft Certify requires a higher initial investment, highlighting a key distinction between the two solutions.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Ranorex Studio
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Ranorex Studio
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing offers versatility across platforms like Oracle and .NET with extensive enterprise add-ins. In comparison, Ranorex Studio provides ease of use for C# users with a strong focus on user-friendliness and quick setup for web, desktop, and mobile applications.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Ranorex Studio Report
OpenText Functional Testing has a lower setup cost compared to Ranorex Studio, which is priced higher for initial setup, highlighting a cost difference between the two options.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a lower setup cost compared to Ranorex Studio, which is priced higher for initial setup, highlighting a cost difference between the two options.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Appium
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Appium
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing offers extensive browser and environment support for enterprise solutions, justifying its higher cost. In comparison, Appium focuses on mobile automation for Android and iOS, providing budget-friendly open-source testing, appealing to cost-conscious organizations needing mobile testing capabilities.
Download Appium vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report
OpenText Functional Testing has higher setup costs compared to Appium, offering extensive enterprise features, while Appium provides a more affordable entry point with flexibility for mobile testing environments.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has higher setup costs compared to Appium, offering extensive enterprise features, while Appium provides a more affordable entry point with flexibility for mobile testing environments.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Testim
4.6 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Testim
4.6 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing offers broad compatibility and integration with complex systems. In comparison, Testim focuses on advanced AI-driven automation and fast execution. OpenText suits enterprises with extensive systems, while Testim’s agility appeals to teams needing quick, efficient testing cycles.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Testim Report
OpenText Functional Testing entails a high initial setup cost, while Testim offers a more budget-friendly setup, which sets them apart in terms of affordability.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing entails a high initial setup cost, while Testim offers a more budget-friendly setup, which sets them apart in terms of affordability.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Qt Squish
4.4 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Qt Squish
4.4 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing offers robust integration with diverse platforms for comprehensive automation. In comparison, Qt Squish enhances cross-platform testing for Qt applications with effective object recognition, appealing to teams needing integration into CI systems and testing across different technologies.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Qt Squish Report
OpenText Functional Testing incurs high setup costs, while Qt Squish offers a more budget-friendly alternative.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing incurs high setup costs, while Qt Squish offers a more budget-friendly alternative.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
UiPath Test Cloud
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
UiPath Test Cloud
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing offers versatility and extensive integration capabilities across various applications. In comparison, UiPath Test Cloud is more user-friendly, providing flexibility and seamless integration with CI/CD pipelines. Technology professionals might choose OpenText for advanced features, while non-technical users may prefer UiPath for its simplicity.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. UiPath Test Cloud Report
OpenText Functional Testing highlights higher setup costs, whereas UiPath Test Cloud offers a more economical setup. Comparing these, the cost difference is significant, making UiPath Test Cloud a more budget-friendly option for businesses with limited initial budgets.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing highlights higher setup costs, whereas UiPath Test Cloud offers a more economical setup. Comparing these, the cost difference is significant, making UiPath Test Cloud a more budget-friendly option for businesses with limited initial budgets.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
ReadyAPI Test
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
ReadyAPI Test
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing excels in application and platform compatibility, appealing to enterprises with diverse testing needs. In comparison, ReadyAPI Test's strength lies in robust API testing with flexible scripting. OpenText provides varied deployment, whereas ReadyAPI Test offers scalable licensing.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. ReadyAPI Test Report
OpenText Functional Testing features straightforward setup costs, while ReadyAPI Test stands out with competitive pricing. Users often note differences in cost efficiency between the two, highlighting each platform's distinct approach to value delivery.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing features straightforward setup costs, while ReadyAPI Test stands out with competitive pricing. Users often note differences in cost efficiency between the two, highlighting each platform's distinct approach to value delivery.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Parasoft SOAtest
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Parasoft SOAtest
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing is ideal for diverse environment support and test automation with ALM integration. In comparison, Parasoft SOAtest excels in API testing with extensive web service automation, appealing to businesses focusing on backend testing and protocol flexibility.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report
OpenText Functional Testing involves a moderate setup cost, while Parasoft SOAtest is known for its higher pricing structure. This significant difference highlights OpenText's more cost-effective approach compared to Parasoft's premium setup.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing involves a moderate setup cost, while Parasoft SOAtest is known for its higher pricing structure. This significant difference highlights OpenText's more cost-effective approach compared to Parasoft's premium setup.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
ReadyAPI
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
ReadyAPI
3.9 out of 5
OpenText offers strong support for desktop applications, extensive browser compatibility, and comprehensive test management. In comparison, ReadyAPI excels in API testing with seamless CI/CD integration and a flexible scripting environment, ideal for teams prioritizing API functionalities and ease of use.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. ReadyAPI Report
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher setup cost compared to ReadyAPI, highlighting a significant pricing difference between the two.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher setup cost compared to ReadyAPI, highlighting a significant pricing difference between the two.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
LEAPWORK
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
LEAPWORK
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing appeals to those seeking cost-effective solutions and robust support. In comparison, LEAPWORK attracts users valuing comprehensive features and intuitive design, ideal for non-technical teams. OpenText benefits from strong integration support, while LEAPWORK emphasizes quick setup with flexible pricing.
Download LEAPWORK vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report
OpenText Functional Testing involves a complex setup process, while LEAPWORK offers a simpler, more intuitive setup. The greater complexity in OpenText may reflect its advanced capabilities, whereas LEAPWORK provides accessibility for users seeking ease of use.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing involves a complex setup process, while LEAPWORK offers a simpler, more intuitive setup. The greater complexity in OpenText may reflect its advanced capabilities, whereas LEAPWORK provides accessibility for users seeking ease of use.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Oracle Application Testing Suite
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing excels in supporting diverse technologies like Oracle and SAP, offering robust frameworks for various applications. In comparison, Oracle Application Testing Suite's strength lies in its seamless integration with Oracle environments, making it ideal for businesses heavily using Oracle ERP systems.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite Report
OpenText Functional Testing typically incurs a lower setup cost compared to Oracle Application Testing Suite, which may have higher upfront expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing typically incurs a lower setup cost compared to Oracle Application Testing Suite, which may have higher upfront expenses.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Telerik Test Studio
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing is ideal for complex environments with its integration capabilities. In comparison, Telerik Test Studio offers a user-friendly setup, emphasizing simplicity and quick test creation. OpenText suits scalability needs, while Telerik appeals to smaller teams seeking efficiency and rapid deployment.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Telerik Test Studio Report
OpenText Functional Testing incurs higher setup costs, while Telerik Test Studio offers a more budget-friendly implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing incurs higher setup costs, while Telerik Test Studio offers a more budget-friendly implementation.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Visual Studio Test Professional
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing offers advanced automation across multiple platforms, appealing to those seeking rich integration capabilities. In comparison, Visual Studio Test Professional excels with its seamless Microsoft technology integration, ideal for users focused on optimizing workflows within the Microsoft ecosystem.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Visual Studio Test Professional Report
OpenText Functional Testing involves a moderate setup cost, while Visual Studio Test Professional offers a more cost-effective setup.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing involves a moderate setup cost, while Visual Studio Test Professional offers a more cost-effective setup.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Panaya Test Dynamix
4.3 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing is favored for its cost-effectiveness and strong support, making it ideal for budget-conscious tech buyers. In comparison, Panaya Test Dynamix's sophisticated test management capabilities and advanced features justify its higher investment for those seeking long-term value and enhanced workflow efficiency.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Panaya Test Dynamix Report
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher initial setup cost, while Panaya Test Dynamix offers a more economical setup option.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher initial setup cost, while Panaya Test Dynamix offers a more economical setup option.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Opkey
1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Opkey
1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing is ideal for budget-conscious buyers with complex application needs, offering efficient test automation and strong integration at a competitive price. In comparison, Opkey appeals to non-technical teams seeking ease of deployment and comprehensive features to enhance productivity and adaptability.
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher setup cost, while Opkey offers a more cost-effective alternative.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher setup cost, while Opkey offers a more cost-effective alternative.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Appvance AIQ Platform
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing is ideal for cost-effective solutions with strong test automation and integration capabilities. In comparison, Appvance AIQ Platform attracts those prioritizing AI-driven testing for faster execution and intelligent test creation, offering significant ROI with adaptive testing despite higher initial costs.
OpenText Functional Testing incurs a significant setup cost, while Appvance AIQ Platform offers a more affordable initial investment, highlighting a key pricing difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing incurs a significant setup cost, while Appvance AIQ Platform offers a more affordable initial investment, highlighting a key pricing difference between the two solutions.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
IBM DevOps Test UI
3.6 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
IBM DevOps Test UI
3.6 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing supports diverse platforms like SAP and Oracle, ideal for broad tech environments. In comparison, IBM DevOps Test UI integrates seamlessly with IBM tools, perfect for enterprises in the IBM ecosystem, especially those prioritizing Java and .NET environments.
Download IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report
OpenText Functional Testing has a lower setup cost, while IBM DevOps Test UI incurs higher initial expenses, highlighting a key financial difference between the two.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a lower setup cost, while IBM DevOps Test UI incurs higher initial expenses, highlighting a key financial difference between the two.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
mabl
1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
mabl
1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing, known for solid support and pricing, attracts enterprises needing comprehensive integration. In comparison, mabl distinguishes itself with AI-driven features, offering smarter automation and easier deployment, appealing to Agile environments despite potentially higher initial costs.
OpenText Functional Testing involves a substantial initial setup cost, while mabl offers a more streamlined setup process.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing involves a substantial initial setup cost, while mabl offers a more streamlined setup process.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Testsigma
1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Testsigma
1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing provides comprehensive test integration, appealing to those requiring robust test management. In comparison, Testsigma's no-code platform and cloud deployment offer quick setup for agile teams, making it attractive for those prioritizing ease of use and continuous testing environments.
OpenText Functional Testing involves an upfront setup cost, while Testsigma offers a more budget-friendly initial setup. This difference highlights OpenText's higher initial investment compared to Testsigma's cost-effective approach.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing involves an upfront setup cost, while Testsigma offers a more budget-friendly initial setup. This difference highlights OpenText's higher initial investment compared to Testsigma's cost-effective approach.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Avo Assure
1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Avo Assure
1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing is favored for its cost-effective pricing and reliable support. In comparison, Avo Assure offers scriptless automation and cross-platform capabilities, making it suitable for complex testing needs. Avo Assure's ease of deployment and customer service enhances its appeal despite higher initial costs.
OpenText Functional Testing involves a higher setup cost, while Avo Assure offers a more budget-friendly initial setup, highlighting cost differences for prospective users.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing involves a higher setup cost, while Avo Assure offers a more budget-friendly initial setup, highlighting cost differences for prospective users.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
ZAPTEST
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
ZAPTEST
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing is chosen for robust enterprise integration while In comparison, ZAPTEST is selected for its flexible cross-platform testing. Tech buyers might prefer OpenText for seamless enterprise software integration, while ZAPTEST attracts those needing versatile testing with minimal scripting.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. ZAPTEST Report
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher setup cost, whereas ZAPTEST offers a more budget-friendly option. This distinction highlights the financial commitment required for implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher setup cost, whereas ZAPTEST offers a more budget-friendly option. This distinction highlights the financial commitment required for implementation.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
IBM Rational Test Workbench
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing offers affordability and strong customer support, deploying rapidly and providing scalable automation. In comparison, IBM Rational Test Workbench delivers advanced features like robust test data management and sophisticated service virtualization, catering to enterprises seeking comprehensive solutions despite a higher upfront cost.
Download IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report
OpenText Functional Testing has a straightforward setup cost, whereas IBM Rational Test Workbench demands a higher initial investment, emphasizing a significant cost difference.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a straightforward setup cost, whereas IBM Rational Test Workbench demands a higher initial investment, emphasizing a significant cost difference.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Applitools
1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Applitools
1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing is valued for its competitive pricing and robust customer support, making it ideal for comprehensive test automation. In comparison, Applitools offers AI-powered visual testing, preferred for accurate UI assessments despite higher costs, appealing to teams focusing on visual quality assurance.
OpenText Functional Testing requires a higher initial setup cost, while Applitools offers a more budget-friendly setup.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing requires a higher initial setup cost, while Applitools offers a more budget-friendly setup.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
Qualitia Automation Studio
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing offers an attractive mix of pricing and comprehensive support, appealing to budget-conscious teams. In comparison, Qualitia Automation Studio excels with its scriptless automation and ease of use, catering to teams seeking streamlined processes and simplified test creation.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Qualitia Automation Studio Report
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher initial setup cost, while Qualitia Automation Studio offers a more cost-effective setup solution.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher initial setup cost, while Qualitia Automation Studio offers a more cost-effective setup solution.
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
OpenText Functional Testing Logo
BMC Compuware Topaz Total Test
1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing excels in advanced automation and adaptable deployment models. In comparison, Topaz Total Test offers comprehensive mainframe testing and integrated test data management, which makes it ideal for enterprises focused on legacy system performance and willing to invest in specialized solutions.
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher setup cost compared to BMC Compuware Topaz Total Test, making the latter a more cost-effective option for initial deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing has a higher setup cost compared to BMC Compuware Topaz Total Test, making the latter a more cost-effective option for initial deployment.

Related categories

Functional Testing Tools
Mobile App Testing Tools
Regression Testing Tools