Top 10 OpenText Functional Testing Alternatives

4.0 out of 5

98 reviews
87% willing to recommend

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 BrowserStack. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. OpenText Functional Testing surpasses its competitors by offering comprehensive automation capabilities, seamless integration with various environments, and a user-friendly interface designed to enhance testing efficiency and accuracy, making it a preferred choice for organizations seeking reliable testing solutions.

OpenText Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with OpenText, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.

Get the alternatives report

Tricentis Tosca

4.1 out of 5

Tricentis Tosca

4.1 out of 5

OpenText Functional Testing excels in environment compatibility and robust API capabilities, ideal for enterprises needing comprehensive solutions. In comparison, Tricentis Tosca offers codeless automation and model-based testing, appealing to organizations seeking accessible automation and efficient test case creation.

Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Tricentis Tosca Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing has a lower setup cost compared to Tricentis Tosca, which has a higher initial investment requirement. This cost difference plays a significant role in evaluating the financial feasibility of each software.

View comparison

Pricing

Katalon Studio

3.9 out of 5

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

Pricing

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.

BrowserStack

4.0 out of 5

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

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.

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.

Postman Enterprise

4.1 out of 5

Postman Enterprise

4.1 out of 5

OpenText Functional Testing supports diverse environments, ideal for comprehensive testing, while users seek browser enhancements. In comparison, Postman Enterprise offers API-focused solutions with collaborative features and strong reporting. OpenText provides extensive control over data, whereas Postman excels in accessibility and competitive pricing.

Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Postman Enterprise Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing involves a significant initial setup cost, while Postman Enterprise offers a more budget-friendly setup process. This key difference might impact initial adoption decisions dependent on budgeting priorities.

View comparison

Pricing

SmartBear TestComplete

3.8 out of 5

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

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.

View comparison

Pricing

Perfecto

4.2 out of 5

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

Pricing

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.

BlazeMeter

4.1 out of 5

BlazeMeter

4.1 out of 5

OpenText Functional Testing excels in supporting diverse technologies and is ideal for businesses needing comprehensive automation despite high costs. In comparison, BlazeMeter effectively handles performance testing with scalable, cloud-based solutions and flexible pricing, making it appealing for those prioritizing resource management and scalability.

Download BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing incurs a higher setup cost, while BlazeMeter offers a more economical initial investment. The difference in pricing highlights the target market and feature set of each solution.

View comparison

Pricing

Eggplant Test

3.9 out of 5

Eggplant Test

3.9 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

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.

View comparison

Pricing

Sauce Labs

4.4 out of 5

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

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.

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.

Worksoft Certify

4.2 out of 5

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

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.

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.

Show 29 more products

Related categories

Functional Testing Tools

Mobile App Testing Tools

Regression Testing Tools