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

ACCELQ Automate vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

ACCELQ Automate
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
14th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
10th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of ACCELQ Automate is 1.4%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.9%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers2.9%
ACCELQ Automate1.4%
Other95.7%
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

PrabhuKrishnamoorthy - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director at Ascendion
Provides good stability and a valuable object identification feature
We evaluated data testing for millions of records. As per architecture, it can efficiently run a few thousands of records. However, we couldn't implement it for millions of records. Thus, it works well for a small amount of data. We have 30 users for it in our organization and use it daily. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The platform contributes to faster test release cycles."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio."
"Integrates well with other products."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
 

Cons

"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."
"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."
"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Performing Arts
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise29
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about ACCELQ Automate?
The platform contributes to faster test release cycles.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ACCELQ Automate?
I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized.
What needs improvement with ACCELQ Automate?
The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details. Additionally, there could be a capability to automatically generate automation scripts extracting the user data fr...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?
There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

FISCHER, optanix, ERICSSON, BenifitMall, QuickPivot, DIGITALFUEL, westcreek
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Katalon Studio, UiPath and others in Test Automation Tools. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.