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
17th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
10th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in API Testing Tools
11th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
13th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (4th), AI Quality Assurance (2nd)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
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 August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of ACCELQ is 0.8%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.8%, down from 9.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.8%
ACCELQ0.8%
Other91.4%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Rohit Kumar Majji - PeerSpot reviewer
Quality Assurance Engineer at Amazon
Automation has transformed regression cycles and brings QA and non-coding testers together
The best features of ACCELQ are its codeless automation, self-healing, and the fact that it brings web, API, and mobile testing into one platform with good CI/CD integration. The biggest impact for our team is usually self-healing because it cuts down flaky test maintenance and keeps regression runs stable when UI elements change. The CI/CD integration helps by letting you trigger automation as part of the build and release flow, so tests run early, failures are visible faster, and the team gets feedback without manual coordination. To summarize, self-healing has had the biggest impact for us because it reduced maintenance and made our tests more stable, while the CI/CD integration helps a lot in daily work since we can trigger runs from pipeline and get faster feedback to catch issues before release. ACCELQ has positively impacted our organization by making our automation more stable, faster to maintain, and easier to scale across the QA team. It also helped us reduce the flaky tests, improve regression turnaround, and bring manual and automation testers onto the same workflow more effectively. One measurable improvement is that our regression cycle dropped from about five days to eight hours as I mentioned earlier. We also saw a noticeable reduction in flaky test maintenance, which helped the team spend more time on actual test coverage instead of fixing broken scripts. The platform is especially useful for mixed-skill teams because it lets both QA and non-coding users contribute without making the workflow fragmented.
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."
"We used ACCELQ to automate our regression suite for web and API flows, and it actually helped us cut the regression cycle from about five days to around eight hours."
"It allows us to automate hundreds of test cases that would normally have to be manually tested."
"My company is very firefighting friendly, so the ROI was immense when it came to automation and the amount of time it took to get test suites and regression set up."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications, and it is very productive in terms of execution."
"We have performed 3500 test case automations, and we are able to execute them in just five days, whereas if we were to do this manually, it would take 30 days."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"If you're a company that is working with any legacy systems, and you need automation with both web-based applications and terminal-based applications, the solution would be a good thing to use."
"UFT is the only technology that enabled us to actually automate our core application."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
 

Cons

"ACCELQ can be improved in a few practical areas. It needs stronger reporting and analytics to help teams get clear visibility into execution trends, failure patterns, and coverage gaps."
"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"The solution is 70-80% stable. Stability really depends on the servers or the license which we have installed."
"Having an Object Repository that is not stored but built through the run is the most difficult and time consuming task."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."
"It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari. That's a very key requirement for my organization."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"It could be cheaper. I feel like it is a little expensive, but I never honestly understood the enterprise software space."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized."
"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"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."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
29%
Computer Software Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
5%
 

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

What needs improvement with ACCELQ Automate?
ACCELQ can be improved in a few practical areas. It needs stronger reporting and analytics to help teams get clear visibility into execution trends, failure patterns, and coverage gaps. Smoother on...
What is your primary use case for ACCELQ Automate?
My main use case for ACCELQ is for end-to-end test automation for web and API testing, especially for CI/CD regression suites. We used ACCELQ to automate our regression suite for web and API flows,...
What advice do you have for others considering ACCELQ Automate?
I would advise others to start with a clear proof of concept and test ACCELQ against their real workflows, not just as a simple demo. It seems to work best when teams value maintainability, codeles...
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 ACCELQ vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: July 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.