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

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros and cons

Vendor: OpenText

3.7 out of 5

39 reviews
78% willing to recommend

Pros & Cons summary

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, supporting the banking industry, simplifies automation with object repository functions but struggles with unstable test execution and lacks parallel browser testing. While Micro Focus UFT Developer offers flexibility and LeanFT supports multiple protocols, both need faster startup and updated integrations for .NET and Visual Studio. High pricing affects competitiveness, overshadowing benefits like reduced lead time and increased productivity. Improved object recognition, particularly with calendar controls, is essential.

Buyer's Guide

Get pricing advice, tips, use cases and valuable features from real users of this product.

Prominent pros & cons

PROS

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers accelerates software testing automation, reducing lead time and increasing productivity.

It integrates well with other products and testing frameworks like Visual Studio, enhancing its versatility.

The tool supports regulation compliance for industries like banking, making it trustworthy for sensitive applications.

The object repository function simplifies object identification, significantly cutting down on automation testing development time.

The tool is scalable and supports testing across various protocols and applications, including SAP, Siebel, .Net, and pdf.

CONS

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support.

The parallel execution of tests needs improvement, particularly in executing tests simultaneously across different browsers like IE, Microsoft Edge, Chrome, and Mozilla.

It requires high-level development skills, and scripting is essential, making it development-intensive and unsuitable for teams without software engineering backgrounds.

The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio is limited, only supporting Visual Studio 2019 and up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8 despite newer releases.

Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls, schedulers, and calendars, making customized solutions often necessary.

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Pros review quotes

Research & Development Engineer at a insurance company with 201-500 employees

Aug 19, 2019

It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry.

Read full review

RS

Performance Lead Manager at Wipro Limited

Jul 1, 2024

In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints.

Read full review

reviewer1475940

Systems Engineer at a aerospace/defense firm with 10,001+ employees

Mar 30, 2021

The solution is very scalable.

Read full review

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Reviews and More

Learn what your peers think about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: July 2025.

864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.

NA

Director, Information Technology Infrastructure at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

Aug 25, 2019

One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly.

Read full review

PE

Peter-Paul Eijkenboom

Senior Test Automation Specialist at APG

Sep 15, 2019

The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf.

Read full review

reviewer1270638

Programator at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees

Jan 22, 2020

The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases.

Read full review

Senior Test Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

Nov 13, 2019

The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working.

Read full review

reviewer1499238

Framework Architect and Test Automation Specialist at a government with 5,001-10,000 employees

Jan 30, 2021

This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us.

Read full review

AE

Engineer at Honeywell

Jul 22, 2025

We have UI controls in Infragistics logic that have been identified by OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, but those controls are not supported by TestComplete, which is what I find most valuable.

Read full review

DS

Dhananjay Singh

Team Leader at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees

Oct 25, 2020

The cost is the most important factor in this tool.

Read full review

Show 10 more reviews (out of 25)

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Cons review quotes

Research & Development Engineer at a insurance company with 201-500 employees

Aug 19, 2019

It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support.

Read full review

RS

Performance Lead Manager at Wipro Limited

Jul 1, 2024

There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad.

Read full review

reviewer1475940

Systems Engineer at a aerospace/defense firm with 10,001+ employees

Mar 30, 2021

The pricing could be improved.

Read full review

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Reviews and More

Learn what your peers think about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: July 2025.

864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.

NA

Director, Information Technology Infrastructure at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

Aug 25, 2019

The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added.

Read full review

PE

Peter-Paul Eijkenboom

Senior Test Automation Specialist at APG

Sep 15, 2019

It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute.

Read full review

reviewer1270638

Programator at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees

Jan 22, 2020

The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement.

Read full review

Senior Test Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

Nov 13, 2019

The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years.

Read full review

reviewer1499238

Framework Architect and Test Automation Specialist at a government with 5,001-10,000 employees

Jan 30, 2021

With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine.

Read full review

DS

Dhananjay Singh

Team Leader at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees

Oct 25, 2020

In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable.

Read full review

DG

Senior Specialist - Quality Engineer at a financial services firm with 201-500 employees

Apr 13, 2021

I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability.

Read full review

Show 10 more reviews (out of 24)

Product Categories

Product Categories

Functional Testing Tools

Test Automation Tools

Popular Comparisons

Popular Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Perfecto vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Eggplant Test vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

LambdaTest vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Qt Squish vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Parasoft SOAtest vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Telerik Test Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Visual Studio Test Professional vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

See all alternatives

Product Categories

Product Categories

Functional Testing Tools

Test Automation Tools

Popular Comparisons

Popular Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Perfecto vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Eggplant Test vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

LambdaTest vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Qt Squish vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Parasoft SOAtest vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Telerik Test Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Visual Studio Test Professional vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

See all alternatives

Related questions

10

Which product supports Cross Browser Testing: UFT Developer or UFT One?

26

Cross-Platform Automated Testing Tool

138

Anyone have a good example of a Test Automation Business Case?

9

When evaluating Functional Testing Tools, what aspect do you think is the most important to look for?

78

What is the best automation tool to test dynamic data?

19

SOAtest vs. SoapUI NG Pro?

20

Tosca Testsuite Version 10.0

182

What is the best tool for SAP testing?

188

Do you have an RFP template for Testing Tools which you can share?

405

What are some common causes for software failure?