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

AWS Device Farm vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 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

AWS Device Farm
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
11th
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of AWS Device Farm is 2.5%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 20.7%, up from 20.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing20.7%
AWS Device Farm2.5%
Other76.8%
Mobile App Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

AshishSingh11 - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation Test Lead at Cap Gemini
A stable solution used for malware testing and APM that needs to improve its performance
The setup phase was fine because AWS had given the whole tree structure on their website. So, basically, if we go here and there apart from that tree structure, it does not support it. So they have a very sophisticated tree structure. So that is the only tree structure that we have to follow. Else, there will be problems. I rate the setup process a seven out of ten, with ten being the easiest setup. Since I had to study the solution, it took me a week to properly deploy it. I just followed the instructions given by AWS to deploy the solution. So on their website, whatever the steps they had given, I simply kept on following it.
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

"I rate the stability an eight out of ten."
"What I like best about AWS Device Farm is that it offers actual physical devices that let you do more accurate testing because physical devices depict the live testing scenarios much better as opposed to emulated devices. AWS Device Farm is a pretty nice solution. Because it's an AWS service, you can use the CLI to tie in several steps that can create the pipeline, and run it efficiently. AWS Device Farm also gives you monitoring ability, observability, logging, etc., so I'm pretty satisfied with the solution."
"It's allowed us to perform functional testing (to verify a specific action or function of code) for each product update."
"UFT is easy to use for functional testing, so for me it’s very important that it can travel across a large range of technologies."
"You get rid of manual testing, which is a huge improvement."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"The process has helped my organization greatly reduce time and cost when it comes to testing a new project."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"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."
"Whereas, in UFT One, I like that our maintenance costs have been reduced by a lot because UFT One is using an artificial intelligence feature to identify objects visually."
 

Cons

"An area for improvement in AWS Device Farm is that it lacks a lot of features that would tie it in with other AWS services."
"An area for improvement in AWS Device Farm is that it lacks a lot of features that would tie it in with other AWS services. The solution doesn't have great connectivity with other services offered by AWS, for example, AWS Secrets Manager. This should be improved because a lot of times, that missing functionality hampers the quality and engineering standards in terms of deploying the full AWS suite of services. What I'd like to see in the next version of AWS Device Farm is for it to link better, or have some type of enrollment that would tie it in with other AWS services, such as EventBridge, Lambda, Secrets Manager, and any other new service from AWS."
"It is slow. It is super slow. Performance is an area that can be improved."
"When debugging code in UFT, it would crash, freeze and hang a lot."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"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."
"The user interface could be improved"
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."
"HP is very strong on the testing side, but in the last few years with the agile methodology it has lagged behind."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"AWS Device Farm is an expensive service overall. You pay per device, and the cost for each device isn't cheap. My company paid for a device slot. It's a yearly subscription for a single device slot, so that's more cost-effective for my company. On a scale of one to five, where one is very expensive and five is very cheap, I'd give AWS Device Farm a two. It's on the more expensive side."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"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."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"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."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
18%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Consumer Goods Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
13%
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

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...
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

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

NFL, Etsy, Tableau, Gannett, Miniclip, Allstate, Rainforest, goibibo, mysmartprice, Zillow
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Device Farm vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.