Appium vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?

Appium and OpenText are both solutions in the Regression Testing Tools category. Appium is ranked #8 with an average rating of 7.3, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.7. Appium holds a 2.0% mindshare in RTT, compared to OpenText’s 14.0% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of Appium users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Appium

Read 30 Appium reviews

3,511 Views
1,194 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

16,684 Views
7,841 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Appium

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

OpenText Functional Testing and Appium compete in the field of automation testing tools. OpenText Functional Testing appears to have the upper hand with its comprehensive suite of features and broader technology support.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers robust object identification, API testing, and codeless automation capabilities, leveraging artificial intelligence for test analysis. Appium, on the other hand, provides flexibility in mobile platform automation, supporting Android and iOS natively, with extensive language support such as Java and Python.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could enhance support for modern programming languages and reduce its complexity by improving integration with DevSecOps and browser compatibility. Appium lacks stability for long runs and has limited support for technologies like React.js and Unity, affecting its performance and requiring better documentation for non-technical users.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is primarily deployed on-premises but offers cloud options, though it gets average customer support ratings with recognized delays. Appium, however, deploys seamlessly across clouds, with strong community support compensating for the lack of direct support teams.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is expensive with a complex licensing model, yet delivers a strong ROI through extensive capabilities. Appium is cost-effective as an open-source solution, providing adaptability and community support for a solid ROI alternative to costly commercial tools.

To learn more, read our detailed Appium vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: September 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Appium vs. OpenText Functional Testing

September 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 913,683 peers since 2012

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

Appium

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

8th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile Development Platforms (10th)

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Regression Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Appium is 2.0%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 14.0%, up from 14.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Regression Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	14.0%
Appium	2.0%
Other	84.0%

Regression Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

APARNA SAHA

Independent consultant, at OpenText

Efficient mobile testing with intuitive emulation capabilities and a user-friendly interface

Initial setup for Appium (especially for iOS) is not beginner-friendly.Consumes too much of your host machine's resources, potentially slowing down the machine.Appium Inspector often lacks deep insight or crashes with certain app builds. Improve test flakiness by intelligently selecting robust self-healing locators,simplified installers, better documentation, GUI-based config management,smart wait mechanisms and better failure logs.

Read full review

Kevin Copple

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Obviously because of automation, it reduces manual testing efforts."

"For our company, Appium's similarity with Selenium is important as we use Selenium."

"When it comes to mobile automation, I recommend this solution because of its performance, and scalability over the competition."

"I haven't explored other solutions in this particular area, but what I like best about Appium is the fact that it shares functions with Selenium. The extension of Selenium functions allows me to use all of the methods that exist in that domain, and it just makes it simpler for me. I've been using Selenium for some time as well, so using Appium just seems like a natural fit for me."

"The most valuable features of Appium are the in-built functionality, which we can use in our code. For example, move back, move front, navigate one page before, and navigate one page ahead. You can do this by using the in-built functions from Appium."

"The solution is easy to use."

"It's an open-source solution with a very large community and available documentation."

"It's one of the most stable solutions for mobile automation."

More Appium pros

"You get rid of manual testing, which is a huge improvement."

"When compared with UFT and manual execution, we have definitely saved a lot of effort, somewhere in the range of 60 to 70 percent when compared with our efforts to manually test."

"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."

"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."

"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."

"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications, and it is very productive in terms of execution."

"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."

"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"Installation of this particular tool is tedious, and it gives you a good number of challenges at times."

"The initial setup is straightforward if you have previous experience with the solution, but it can be complicated for a novice user."

"Support-wise, it could be better."

"An application developed on the Unity platform, such as a gaming application, objects are moving in that case. Interacting with those elements is still lacking in Appium. Appium doesn't have the internal library to play with the Unity platform. That is a huge lack right now."

"What needs improvement in Appium is its documentation. It needs to give more context on the libraries that Appium is using under the hood. For example, my team is using Appium for Android automation, and a lot of times, I feel that there's functionality that's available through the Appium interface, that exists within the UIAutomator, but there aren't a lot of useful or helpful resources on the internet to find that information, so it would be good to have some linkage with the underlying platform itself. Another room for improvement in Appium is that it's buggy sometimes. For example, at times, there's a bug in the inspector application that doesn't allow me to save my desired capability set, so it would be nice to get that bug fixed, but overall, Appium is a good tool. The Touch Actions functionality in Appium also needs improvement. For example, if I want to initiate a scroll on the device that I'm running Appium on, sometimes Swipe works, but in other situations, I have to explicitly use action chains, so I'm not too sure what's the better approach. What I'd like to see in the next version of Appium is a more intelligent and more intuitive AppiumLibrary, in terms of identifying menus and scroll bars, etc., because right now, I'm unsure if I have to do a lot of export reversals to get to the elements I'm looking for. It would be nice to have some functionality built in, which would allow me to easily get those exports."

"The installation part of Appium is somewhat clumsy, requiring numerous dependencies and configurations."

"The challenging part with Appium is that installation can be a bit tricky. It can be challenging to set up in Android versus iOS environments."

"Appium doesn't recognize IDs placed by our developers on nested elements when we use React Native for iOS; it just sees the whole page and one element."

More Appium cons

"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."

"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."

"Sometimes you need a little bit more, but then HP help us to find it as they're knowledgeable troubleshooters."

"We would like to see smart identification (captures a unique object during testing) work more reliably."

"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."

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."

"The scalability is good, although it’s not without its problems."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Appium is free and open-source."

"It's open source, so it's completely free."

"There is no license for this solution because it is open-source."

"This is an open source solution so it does not cost anything for licensing or otherwise."

"I'm unsure if there's any cost associated with Appium. I got the free package which includes the server GUI application and the inspector application, and it was free to download, and that's all I need to get my work done. I'm not aware of any additional costs associated with the tool."

"The price is good for people to be able to make a favorable decision for the value."

"The solution is free."

"As far as I know, Appium is a free solution. It's not for commercial use."

More Appium pricing and cost advice

"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."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."

"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

15%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Outsourcing Company

10%

Construction Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Outsourcing Company

Construction Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	6
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	19

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	74

Questions from the Community

Do you recommend Appium?

I do recommend Appium. It is an open-source solution and completely free of charge. We use Appium and Appium Studio as our base for any type of mobile automation for testing. It has a great interfa...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Appium?

My experience with Appium from a pricing perspective is favorable due to it being open source, making it a cost-effective option.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Appium?

The deployment process and configuration are quite complex and require improvement. Additionally, the wait time functionality could be enhanced as I experienced failures with longer wait times.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs Appium

Compared 9% of the time

Perfecto vs Appium

Compared 7% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Appium

Compared 6% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Appium

Compared 6% of the time

OutSystems vs Appium

Compared 3% of the time

More Appium Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 20% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

Oracle Application Testing Suite vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Appium

September 2026

Download Appium product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

September 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

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

Overview

Appium facilitates seamless automation of iOS and Android mobile applications, interfacing smoothly with CI/CD pipelines and enabling cross-platform development. Its open-source framework supports diverse coding languages, enhancing test automation.

Appium stands out for its ability to automate mobile apps across multiple platforms, backed by a strong community and extensive language compatibility. It integrates with continuous integration and delivery workflows, with robust tools like Appium Inspector enhancing element identification. It offers an interface familiar to Selenium users and supports versatile scripting, easing the mobile app testing process for developers. While it provides scalability and simple connectivity, users seek enhancements in stability, speed, and platform integration, specifically with iOS and cloud solutions.

What are Appium's Key Features?

Cross-Platform Support: Enables seamless interaction with mobile apps on Android and iOS.
Programming Language Compatibility: Extensive support for multiple programming languages.
CI/CD Integration: Robust integration with CI/CD pipelines for continuous testing.
Appium Inspector: Tool for effective element identification in apps.
Open Source: Offers scalable and flexible testing solutions without licensing costs.

What Benefits Do Users Look for in Reviews?

Ease of Use: Simple setup and connectivity for streamlined testing.
Familiar Interface: Supports seasoned Selenium users with a common interface.
Comprehensive Automation: Provides functionality for end-to-end regression testing.
Community Support: Strong community offering resources and troubleshooting.
Scalability: Easily handles testing of apps at various scales.

Appium is widely utilized in industries such as healthcare, logistics, and construction for the automation of iOS and Android apps. Companies integrate it into their DevOps practices for continuous testing, using it in hybrid deployments and linking with tools like GitHub Actions and Jira for efficient test management.

Appium

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Nuvizz, Coupa Software, Eventbrite, Evernote

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

Appium vs. OpenText Functional Testing

September 2026

Free Report: Appium vs. OpenText Functional Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about Appium vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Appium vs. OpenText Functional Testing report.

See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Regression Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.