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

ACCELQ vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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 Test Automation Tools
22nd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (18th), Regression Testing Tools (13th), API Testing Tools (15th), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (7th), AI Quality Assurance (9th)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
9th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
7th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
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 for Developers is 3.3%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.3%
ACCELQ Automate0.6%
Other96.1%
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.
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 cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The stability is quite good and we haven't had any issues."
"Even with the problems that I have mentioned, I think that this is one of the best solutions on the market right now."
"Customer Service: The support in the alpha/beta test phase was especially good."
"The most important thing about LeanFT is that it gives us the opportunity to introduce developer testing."
"When they've been working with it for a while and they see the complexity when you're doing real and tough test situations, then they see that this kind of tool is very, very good."
"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."
 

Cons

"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."
"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."
"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."
"There are still some stability issues."
"Technical support is not good."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"As far as comparing to other products, the licensing costs for UFT are very high; the maintenance of the service contract was very high as well and, frankly — compared with more modern tools — it was and is not worth it."
"As the releases come, support for all technologies in the systems under test that UFT currently support will be the obvious place for improvement."
"I didn't find them to be exceptionally good. They are very slow, and for every problem, they want you to raise a ticket."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"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."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"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."
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%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
8%
Performing Arts
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...
 

Also Known As

ACCELQ Unified
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

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, Worksoft, OpenText and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.