Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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 Test Automation Tools
18th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (6th), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (3rd)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
9th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Digital.ai Continuous Testing is 1.1%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.8%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers2.8%
Digital.ai Continuous Testing1.1%
Other96.1%
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Alan Chiou - PeerSpot reviewer
PM at Galaxy Software Services
Has Mobile Studio feature which can generate scripts
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.
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
"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."
"Experitest is one of the only companies to offer a real device on the cloud to perform testing. They also provide quality documentations that help you navigate and maximize the solution."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio."
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."
 

Cons

"I would also like to see more videos and descriptions that could make installation more efficient."
"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."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."
"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"The price of the solution could improve."
 

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 pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Retailer
12%
Insurance Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Performing Arts
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise29
 

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?
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...
What is your primary use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
I'm using Digital.ai Continuous Testing to create and test a mobile application. We're developing and testing a mobile app.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...
 

Also Known As

Experitest Seetest, Experitest
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, American Express, Barclays, China Mobile, Citi, Cisco, McAfee
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.