AutonomIQ TestIQ vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Sauce Labs and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. Sauce Labs is ranked #36, while OpenText is ranked #5 with an average rating of 7.8. Sauce Labs holds a 0.5% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText’s 6.6% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Sauce Labs users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

AutonomIQ TestIQ

Read 1 AutonomIQ TestIQ review

287 Views
287 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,163 Views
6,204 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

AutonomIQ TestIQ

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and AutonomIQ TestIQ compete in the software testing category, each offering unique benefits. AutonomIQ TestIQ has the upper hand due to its advanced features and AI-driven approach.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers robust automation, integration support, and comprehensive testing abilities. AutonomIQ TestIQ provides AI-driven testing, seamless cloud integration, and faster test execution, showcasing its edge in modern technology and scalability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing provides stable deployment and reliable support. AutonomIQ TestIQ’s cloud-based approach reduces setup times and complexities, offering a significant advantage in deployment ease. Both products have competent customer service.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is cost-effective for traditional testing environments with satisfactory ROI. AutonomIQ TestIQ, despite a higher initial cost, offers significant ROI due to reduced testing cycles and AI efficiencies, justifying its price through superior performance.

To learn more, read our detailed Test Automation Tools Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,733 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

AutonomIQ TestIQ

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

36th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

5th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (4th), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of AutonomIQ TestIQ is 0.5%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 6.6%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Automation Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	6.6%
AutonomIQ TestIQ	0.5%
Other	92.9%

Test Automation Tools

Featured Reviews

Vijay Sawale

Test Associate & Manager at IGT Solutions

A low-code and no-code tool for automation purposes that is very user-friendly

AutonomIQ TestIQ is only available on mobile devices and on the web. I wish to see AutonomIQ TestIQ in a different area, like game automation or game testing. There is no tool or support offered in the market for game testing. The automatic automation should help capture videos, logs, audio, and other steps with which the user plays that particular game if I want to automate any graphical game with the help of a low-code and no-code tool, like AutonomIQ TestIQ. The ability to capture and record with the help of automation is not there in AutonomIQ TestIQ. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement.

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

"UI is one of the best features of AutonomIQ TestIQ."

"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."

"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."

"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."

"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."

"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."

"OpenText Functional Testing has an impressive ability to connect to mobile devices and its ability to test so many different types of software, whether it be mainframe, APIs, mobile, web, or desktop."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"The ability to capture and record with the help of automation is not there in AutonomIQ TestIQ."

"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."

"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."

"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."

"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."

"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."

"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."

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

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""

"The tool's price is high."

"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."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

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

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	71

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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 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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

See all answers

Comparisons

Katalon Studio vs AutonomIQ TestIQ

Compared 53% of the time

LEAPWORK vs AutonomIQ TestIQ

Compared 47% of the time

More AutonomIQ TestIQ Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 18% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

January 2026

Download AutonomIQ TestIQ product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

January 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

Run your automated tests in parallel to improve results velocity by 10x or more and give your development teams the fast feedback they need. Quickly and easily update your existing Selenium and Appium scripts to run on the Sauce Labs Continuous Testing Cloud.

Sauce Labs

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

Information Not Available

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

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

January 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Katalon Studio, UiPath and others in Test Automation Tools. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Automation 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.