Top 10 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Alternatives

3.7 out of 5

39 reviews
78% willing to recommend

Top OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to OpenText Functional Testing for Developers based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, and SmartBear TestComplete. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers surpasses its competitors by offering seamless integration into development environments, advanced debugging capabilities, and efficient test execution, making it a preferred choice for developers seeking robust and reliable software 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

Tricentis Tosca offers ease for non-technical users with model-based testing and scriptless functionality, supporting diverse applications. In comparison, OpenText Functional Testing provides a coding-based framework for developers with Java and C# support, facilitating integration with development pipelines.

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Tricentis Tosca Report

Pricing

Tricentis Tosca involves a higher setup cost compared to OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, highlighting a significant pricing difference between these solutions.

View comparison

Pricing

Tricentis Tosca involves a higher setup cost compared to OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, highlighting a significant pricing difference between these solutions.

Katalon Studio

3.9 out of 5

Katalon Studio

3.9 out of 5

OpenText Functional Testing is ideal for large enterprises seeking comprehensive automation features for cost savings. In comparison, Katalon Studio provides an affordable solution for small to medium enterprises with easy deployment and advanced testing capabilities across web and mobile applications.

Download Katalon Studio vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers tends to have a higher setup cost, while Katalon Studio offers a more budget-friendly alternative, highlighting a significant cost difference between them.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers tends to have a higher setup cost, while Katalon Studio offers a more budget-friendly alternative, highlighting a significant cost difference between them.

SmartBear TestComplete

3.8 out of 5

SmartBear TestComplete

3.8 out of 5

SmartBear TestComplete offers extensive cross-platform automation and supports flexible scripting, making it suitable for organizations needing robust capabilities. In comparison, OpenText UFT Developer excels in integration with modern development environments, providing flexibility through varied testing frameworks for diverse platform support.

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. SmartBear TestComplete Report

Pricing

SmartBear TestComplete offers a straightforward setup with lower initial costs, whereas OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves a more complex setup process, potentially leading to higher initial expenditures.

View comparison

Pricing

Perfecto

4.2 out of 5

Perfecto

4.2 out of 5

Perfecto offers comprehensive cloud-based testing with integration capabilities and scalability, ideal for global teams. In comparison, OpenText Functional Testing for Developers excels in developer-friendly environments supporting multiple programming languages, making it suitable for teams transitioning from development to testing.

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Perfecto Report

Pricing

Perfecto offers a straightforward setup cost compared to OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, which demands a more complex initial investment.

View comparison

Pricing

Perfecto offers a straightforward setup cost compared to OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, which demands a more complex initial investment.

Selenium HQ

4.0 out of 5

Selenium HQ

4.0 out of 5

Selenium HQ's open-source nature and multi-language support appeal to budget-conscious developers seeking flexibility. In comparison, OpenText Functional Testing for Developers attracts larger organizations with a need for structured support and consistent deployment, despite higher licensing costs.

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Selenium HQ Report

Pricing

Selenium HQ offers a lower setup cost with open-source flexibility, while OpenText Functional Testing for Developers entails higher initial investment due to its comprehensive feature set.

View comparison

Pricing

Selenium HQ offers a lower setup cost with open-source flexibility, while OpenText Functional Testing for Developers entails higher initial investment due to its comprehensive feature set.

Eggplant Test

4.0 out of 5

Eggplant Test

4.0 out of 5

OpenText Functional Testing suits developers seeking ALM, Jenkins, and DevOps integration, using C# or Java. In comparison, Eggplant Test facilitates diverse environment testing via image recognition and OCR, catering to complex scenarios. Both prioritize automation, aiding decision-making for technology buyers.

Download Eggplant Test vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves a moderate setup cost, while Eggplant Test presents a higher setup investment.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves a moderate setup cost, while Eggplant Test presents a higher setup investment.

LambdaTest

4.3 out of 5

LambdaTest

4.3 out of 5

OpenText Functional Testing offers robust algorithm handling and integration with development tools, appealing for large-scale test management. In comparison, LambdaTest's extensive browser combinations and CI/CD support attract tech buyers seeking flexible cloud-based solutions with real-time and parallel testing capabilities.

Download LambdaTest vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers has a high setup cost, while LambdaTest is more affordable and accessible.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers has a high setup cost, while LambdaTest is more affordable and accessible.

Ranorex Studio

4.0 out of 5

Ranorex Studio

4.0 out of 5

OpenText offers robust complex algorithm handling and developer environment integration, ideal for those in DevOps and ALM. In comparison, Ranorex excels in its user-friendly approach and flexibility, appealing to both technical and non-technical users through its drag-and-drop and coding capabilities.

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Ranorex Studio Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves a more complex setup, while Ranorex Studio offers a simpler implementation process. These differences highlight significant variations in setup cost and user investment time between the two solutions.

View comparison

Pricing

UiPath Test Cloud

3.9 out of 5

UiPath Test Cloud

3.9 out of 5

OpenText Functional Testing is ideal for handling complex algorithms and integrating with ALM, favored by developers familiar with UFT versions. In comparison, UiPath Test Cloud attracts those seeking low-code solutions with diverse service integration and significant automation across various sectors.

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. UiPath Test Cloud Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers has a straightforward setup cost, while UiPath Test Cloud offers more flexible pricing options. The differences lie in pricing structures, catering to varying budgetary requirements and project needs.

View comparison

Pricing

Qt Squish

4.4 out of 5

Qt Squish

4.4 out of 5

OpenText Functional Testing appeals with enterprise integration and AI-based object recognition, aligning well with DevOps. In comparison, Qt Squish offers native Qt support, flexibility with scripting languages, and platform independence, appealing to those requiring diverse integrations and multi-language capabilities.

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Qt Squish Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers incurs a higher setup cost compared to Qt Squish, which has more affordable initial expenses.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers incurs a higher setup cost compared to Qt Squish, which has more affordable initial expenses.