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

Apache JMeter vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
6.7
Apache JMeter offers scalable, cost-effective performance testing, integrating well with CICD and outperforming HP Performance Center in returns.
Sentiment score
7.5
OpenText Functional Testing boosts ROI by enhancing productivity with AI automation, supporting systems, and achieving high returns quickly.
With Apache JMeter, I have gained great statistics for performance and server metrics.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
Apache JMeter relies on community support, praised for efficiency but lacking the dedicated assistance of commercial tools.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText Functional Testing support is mixed, with some users satisfied and others citing slow responses and unhelpfulness, impacting satisfaction.
The support for Apache JMeter is excellent.
Apache JMeter has strong support through its vast Java-based community on platforms like Stack Overflow.
Apache JMeter relies more on community support.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
After creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
Apache JMeter is scalable for large loads, but requires careful configuration and infrastructure, especially for enterprise-level setups.
Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText Functional Testing is scalable, adaptable, integrates well, and requires careful cost and license management for large teams.
JMeter is highly scalable, easily handling increased loads through the use of multiple servers.
This restricts the number of users and necessitates increasing load agents or distributing the script across multiple machines.
For backend automation and performance testing with web services, web APIs, and queue management systems, I would rate Apache JMeter's scalability as between eight and nine.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
Apache JMeter is stable but may face memory issues under high loads; effective in non-GUI mode with proper management.
Sentiment score
6.5
OpenText Functional Testing stability varies; it depends on system configuration, with issues arising from resource limitations and updates.
JMeter performs exceptionally well, especially in non-GUI mode, which supports high loads efficiently.
Several necessary features still need improvements, specifically in terms of reports and additional functionalities compared to other commercial tools.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
 

Room For Improvement

Apache JMeter needs UI, reporting, and automation improvements to handle complex scenarios, large loads, and enhance overall usability.
OpenText Functional Testing requires enhancements in performance, usability, integration, language support, pricing, and user interface to improve adoption.
Currently, we need to use multiple separate JMeter instances to simulate reductions in load, which isn't ideal.
The tool needs improvements related to client-side metrics, integrating with tools like YSlow or HTTP Watch, and enhancing mobile testing capabilities.
With BlazeMeter, you can view the results in real-time.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise users prefer Apache JMeter for its cost-effectiveness and flexibility in performance testing without licensing fees.
OpenText Functional Testing is costly but valued for robust features and ALM compatibility, needing experienced users for maximum ROI.
Using JMeter helps us avoid additional costs for high-load testing since it is open-source and allows for unlimited virtual users at no extra cost.
It's a cost-effective solution.
Apache JMeter is completely free as it is open-source.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
 

Valuable Features

Apache JMeter is praised for its user-friendliness, cost-effectiveness, plugin support, and integration capabilities in performance testing.
OpenText Functional Testing provides versatile platform compatibility, automation features, and seamless integration enhancing efficient test automation and maintenance.
JMeter facilitates scripting capabilities, which include options for Groovy scripts.
It's useful for both the person conducting the test and the higher management, like project managers or senior executives, who may not know about the test.
Despite being open source, it offers features comparable to paid tools.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier.
 

Categories and Ranking

Apache JMeter
Ranking in API Testing Tools
1st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
94
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (1st), Load Testing Tools (1st)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in API Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
96
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the API Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Apache JMeter is 8.3%, down from 17.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 11.4%, up from 9.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Shashidhara Allalappa - PeerSpot reviewer
Extensive Protocol Support and Precise Reporting Elevate Testing, Though GUI Usability Needs Improvement
The GUI of Apache JMeter is not that user-friendly because we have many proxies, and we have to record through the proxy. With the limited SSL we have, we cannot use it for UI, which is a drawback. However, Apache JMeter is really good for REST APIs. I don't think there are any other areas other than the GUI that I would want improved about Apache JMeter; it is generally good and supports multiple protocols.
Badari Mallireddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development
I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How does Postman compare with Apache JMeter?
Postman lets you easily define variables, which then get updated automatically. This is a huge time-saver and makes processes very efficient. We can also export the test cases we create and share t...
How does BlazeMeter compare with Apache JMeter?
Blazemeter is a continuous testing platform that provides scriptless test automation. It unifies functional and performance testing, enabling users to monitor and test public and private APIs. We ...
What do you like most about Apache JMeter?
I appreciate JMeter's simplicity and power for performance testing.
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 do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...
 

Also Known As

JMeter
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AOL, Orbitz, Innopath Software, PrepMe, Sapient, Corporate Express Australia, CSIRO, Ephibian, Talis, DATACOM, ALALOOP, eFusion, Panter, Sourcepole, University of Western Cape
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache JMeter vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.