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

Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

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
10th
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 (3rd), API Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Digital.ai Continuous Testing is 5.0%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 17.4%, down from 22.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing17.4%
Digital.ai Continuous Testing5.0%
Other77.6%
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 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."
"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."
"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 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."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a pretty positive impact on the organization, especially in terms of speed and reliability."
"The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a very positive impact in terms of efficiency and quality."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"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."
"It helps us consolidate our efforts."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"We wouldn't be able to conduct tests or to carry out work without this solution."
"Our current project features more than a 1000 manual test cases, which took several days and resources to execute, and now the suite executes in six hours and less than two when run on multiple machines."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Scalability can be high, but there are things that work against it. You're bound by the licensing structure, so in order to get bigger benefits, you have to have multiple copies, and that costs a ton of money."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory."
"It needs better compatibility with Chrome and Safari, which would lead to this being a better product."
"I’d like to see them improve the number of objects recognized without customization, similar to TestComplete by SmartBear."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"There are scenarios where the tool freezes and locks the user out."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"We would like to see smart identification (captures a unique object during testing) work more reliably."
 

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."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"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.""
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
University
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
6%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker.
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...
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: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.