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

Top 10 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Alternatives

Vendor: OpenText
3.7 out of 5
2,098 followers
Start review

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 with development platforms, advanced automation capabilities, and an intuitive user interface, ensuring efficient and accurate testing of complex applications.

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 for Developers Logo
Tricentis Tosca
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
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
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.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Katalon Studio
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
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
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.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
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
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
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.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Perfecto
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
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
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.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Selenium HQ
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
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
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.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Eggplant Test
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
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
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.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Ranorex Studio
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
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
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
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.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Qt Squish
4.4 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
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
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.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
UiPath Test Cloud
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
UiPath Test Cloud
4.0 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
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
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.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Parasoft SOAtest
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Parasoft SOAtest
4.1 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest excels in API testing, supporting various protocols and tools like Event Monitoring, while offering powerful integration capabilities. In comparison, OpenText Functional Testing for Developers facilitates seamless integration in IDEs and supports Java and C#, enhancing developer environments with comprehensive language support.
Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report
Parasoft SOAtest offers straightforward setup costs, while OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves more complex configuration expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest offers straightforward setup costs, while OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves more complex configuration expenses.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
ReadyAPI
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
ReadyAPI
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers excels with developer-friendly environments and IDE integration like Eclipse and Visual Studio. In comparison, ReadyAPI offers comprehensive API testing with TestEngine integration, Jira connectivity, and flexible pricing, appealing to teams seeking seamless deployment and thorough testing solutions.
Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. ReadyAPI Report
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves a high setup cost, whereas ReadyAPI offers a more budget-friendly setup option.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves a high setup cost, whereas ReadyAPI offers a more budget-friendly setup option.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Visual Studio Test Professional
4.2 out of 5
Visual Studio Test Professional offers seamless Microsoft tool integration and robust debugging, appealing to developers prioritizing .NET and C# environments. In comparison, OpenText Functional Testing emphasizes cross-platform flexibility and a developer-friendly approach, ideal for those needing diverse technology support and integration with various tools.
Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Visual Studio Test Professional Report
Visual Studio Test Professional offers a lower setup cost compared to OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, which requires a more significant investment. The pricing clearly distinguishes these products, highlighting diverse budgeting requirements for potential users.
View comparison
Pricing
Visual Studio Test Professional offers a lower setup cost compared to OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, which requires a more significant investment. The pricing clearly distinguishes these products, highlighting diverse budgeting requirements for potential users.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
ACCELQ Automate
4.5 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
ACCELQ Automate
4.5 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers appeals with its simplicity in deployment and robust scripting features, ideal for steady ROI. In comparison, ACCELQ Automate's codeless automation and cloud-based deployment promise faster ROI, offering unique AI-driven test design for innovative automation solutions.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves substantial setup costs, while ACCELQ Automate has comparatively lower initial expenses, highlighting cost-efficiency as a key differentiator between the two testing solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves substantial setup costs, while ACCELQ Automate has comparatively lower initial expenses, highlighting cost-efficiency as a key differentiator between the two testing solutions.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
IBM DevOps Test UI
3.6 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
IBM DevOps Test UI
3.6 out of 5
IBM DevOps Test UI offers seamless integration with DevOps tools and broad technology support. In comparison, OpenText Functional Testing for Developers excels in automation and test management, providing a flexible deployment model. IBM may be ideal for DevOps-focused enterprises, whereas OpenText suits cost-conscious businesses needing advanced automation.
Download IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Report
IBM DevOps Test UI has a minimal setup cost, while OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves a more substantial initial expense, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM DevOps Test UI has a minimal setup cost, while OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves a more substantial initial expense, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment between the two solutions.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Original Software TestDrive
1 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers affordability and strong customer support with automation capabilities. In comparison, Original Software TestDrive's robust features, comprehensive test management, and easy script maintenance deliver greater value and efficiency, making it attractive despite a higher setup cost.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers an expensive setup cost, while Original Software TestDrive provides a more budget-friendly setup option. The contrast in setup costs is significant, highlighting affordability advantages for Original Software TestDrive.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers an expensive setup cost, while Original Software TestDrive provides a more budget-friendly setup option. The contrast in setup costs is significant, highlighting affordability advantages for Original Software TestDrive.

Related categories

Functional Testing Tools
Test Automation Tools
Mobile App Testing Tools