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

ACCELQ vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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
16th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
10th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in API Testing Tools
9th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
9th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (3rd), AI Quality Assurance (1st)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in API Testing Tools
2nd
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 November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of ACCELQ is 0.9%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.7%, up from 8.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.7%
ACCELQ0.9%
Other90.4%
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."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"My previous organization used UFT extensively for automation more than 500 complex end to end regression tests with considerable savings in time and effort."
"A key benefit, obviously, is in terms of effort savings that we have achieved using UFT."
"This makes UFT the “everything and the kitchen sink” of automation tools, with an easy to learn language, a solid history, and extensive support resources."
"The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool."
"It's scalable on the enterprise level; I have already scaled a project with UFT One at enterprise level, and I am using it because it is very scalable compared to open-source tools and many other tools on the market."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
 

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."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"In my opinion, the improvement of the object recognition of new technologies and the capacity to catch more performance info should be desirable."
"It’s in the middle and not always 100% reliable."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"It's an expensive solution."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"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."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
35%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

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: September 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.