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

Digital.ai Continuous Testing 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

Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
7th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
4.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (3rd)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
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)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Digital.ai Continuous Testing is 4.5%, up from 3.0% 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%
Digital.ai Continuous Testing4.5%
Other74.8%
Mobile App Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mampi Bhattacharya - PeerSpot reviewer
Developer at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Continuous testing has accelerated daily releases and now provides faster, richer debugging insights
Digital.ai Continuous Testing could be better in certain areas, and I can share my experience-based view on what can be frustrating. One issue is device availability and queue delays during peak CI hours. Sometimes devices are busy, causing tests to queue and the pipeline to slow down unexpectedly, which is especially painful for large regression suites or tight release timelines. Improvements are needed in smarter auto-scaling of device pools and better priority-based scheduling. Additionally, execution speed variability occurs; the same test sometimes runs fast and sometimes slow, depending on device load and network latency, making results less predictable. More stable execution environments and better performance isolation per session would help. Furthermore, debugging can still be indirect; even with logs or videos, I do not fully control the device as I would with local debugging, making it hard to pause and inspect live states or reproduce edge-case issues locally. More interactive debugging and improved local reproduction tools are necessary. Cost versus usage efficiency is another area of concern, as device cloud usage can be expensive and we sometimes have idle or inefficient tests that waste money. Improvements in usage analytics and cost optimization suggestions for smart test selection to run only impacted tests are areas where I believe Digital.ai Continuous Testing could improve.
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

"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a pretty positive impact on the organization, especially in terms of speed and reliability."
"Experitest is one of the only companies to offer a real device on the cloud to perform testing, and they also provide quality documentations that help you navigate and maximize the solution."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has positively impacted my organization with massive reductions in testing time, enabling us to cut our regression cycle from two to three days down to two to three hours, transition from weekly releases to nearly daily deployments, and reduce production defects by 30 to 50% while significantly improving debugging efficiency and overall team productivity."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a very positive impact in terms of efficiency and quality."
"The most useful feature for me is Mobile Studio. It has a UI where I can click on elements, and it generates a script for me. Mobile Studio can generate code from testing steps. I'm using Python with it."
"I have seen a clear positive ROI after implementing Digital.ai Continuous Testing, especially in terms of time saving, faster release cycle, and improved efficiency."
"The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
"A key benefit, obviously, is in terms of effort savings that we have achieved using UFT."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The approach to the automation test makes the test activities more interesting and improves the software quality."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies."
"My company is very firefighting friendly, so the ROI was immense when it came to automation and the amount of time it took to get test suites and regression set up."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."
"My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it integrates well into your environment, is easy to use, easy to maintain, and makes your development efforts more efficient."
 

Cons

"Device availability and queue delays during peak CI hours are an issue; sometimes devices are busy, causing tests to queue and the pipeline to slow down unexpectedly, which is especially painful for large regression suites or tight release timelines."
"I believe that it could be more stable. During times when something is not working, it is difficult to find the solution."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a solid tool, but there are a few things that can be frustrating at times."
"The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I submit a ticket to technical support, but they often have to fix it in the next version."
"One challenge is that the initial setup and integration with CI/CD pipelines can sometimes be a bit complex, especially for teams new to automation."
"The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before."
"I have been automating tests for many years on many things but not on mobile devices. The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before. I spent the first two weeks just getting it started. It would be good to have some video explanation of how to use it on your devices and get started. Their online documentation is quite good and extensive, but it would be quite good to have some end-to-end examples demonstrated."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a strong platform, but there are a few areas where it could be improved to make the experience even better."
"There are scenarios where the tool freezes and locks the user out."
"It's hard to install the license seat because the web-based GUI is not user friendly."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"When the number of automation tests are very high, say 5000 to 10000, even with eight to 10 licenses, UFT can take over 24 hours for execution."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"This tool is good for programming experts."
"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is quite fairly priced, but it really depends on your budget. It is somewhere in the mid-range of products. It is not free and it is not QGP that nearly costs a whole house. You pay for the number of users who require access to execute the tests."
"We make monthly payments. The cost is dependent on the number of devices we intend to support."
"The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"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 reasonable."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
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
21%
University
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Retailer
6%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a solid tool, but there are a few things that can be frustrating at times. One thing I noticed is that the initial setup and configuration can feel complex, especia...
What is your primary use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The main use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing has been automating test execution as part of the CI/CD pipeline, especially for ensuring builds are stable before the release. For example, I us...
What advice do you have for others considering Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
If someone is considering using Digital.ai Continuous Testing, my advice would be to start with a clear workflow in mind. From my experience, it works best when you use it as part of a CI/CD pipeli...
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

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, American Express, Barclays, China Mobile, Citi, Cisco, McAfee
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.