No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

ACCELQ vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 22, 2026

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
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
37th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
18th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
13th
Ranking in API Testing Tools
15th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
22nd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (7th), AI Quality Assurance (9th)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in API Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of ACCELQ is 0.6%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.1%, down from 9.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.1%
ACCELQ Automate0.6%
Other92.3%
Functional Testing 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.
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

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 stop automation is a great feature that is not generally supported by other solutions."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"For the QTP/UFT projects I have worked on ROI is always over 300% in the long term."
"As with any test automation tool, the ability to run repeatable tests unattended during off hours saves lots of manual testing hours."
"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
 

Cons

"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"Because of SAP, I would rate the stability a five out of ten."
"Unfortunately, the issue was not resolved. I was told that the answer from the Micro Focus support team was not helpful."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."
"They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
6%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
 

Also Known As

ACCELQ Unified
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

FISCHER, optanix, ERICSSON, BenifitMall, QuickPivot, DIGITALFUEL, westcreek
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, OpenText and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.