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

HeadSpin vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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

HeadSpin
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
34th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Mobile APM (7th), Mobile App Testing Tools (8th)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of HeadSpin is 1.2%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.3%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.3%
HeadSpin1.2%
Other95.5%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Saorabh Singh - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Manager - QA at Games24x7
It fulfills everything from automation to manual performance
The most valuable features of the product are the performance parameters it gives us, as well as the seamless connectivity with our automation suites. I am also pleased with the continuous enhancements made to HeadSpin. There have been many features added since we started using the product, and all of them are useful.
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 initial setup of HeadSpin was very easy and user-friendly, and it was easy to configure and write a script to achieve the desired outcome."
"HeadSpin is highly advanced; it has got all the performance structures to provide visibility into how my app is performing in the real world and helps to identify the gaps."
"The most valuable feature is that this is the first connected intelligence all-in-one platform."
"The technical support is really helpful because we can set up direct calls with them if we want to. We can use Zoom or Google Meet to interact with them directly, and if there is an issue in our system, they will help us by reproducing the issue in their machines and trying to figure out a solution. The support is really smooth, and we like that they're very supportive."
"The most valuable features of the product are the performance parameters it gives us."
"The most valuable feature of HeadSpin it's the integration with other solutions; it is great, and I can search for an element or do a quick debugging on the application right on HeadSpin, which is very useful."
"HeadSpin allowed us to manage remote work during Covid, enable continuous automation execution, and facilitate collaboration between various departments (product managers, developers, etc..)"
"Large companies and enterprises are using this product."
"Even with the problems that I have mentioned, I think that this is one of the best solutions on the market right now."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"When they've been working with it for a while and they see the complexity when you're doing real and tough test situations, then they see that this kind of tool is very, very good."
"Customer Service: The support in the alpha/beta test phase was especially good."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"The fact that it is so easy to go between UFT with its large install base and LeanFT, whoever has used UFT will quite easily become productive with LeanFT, but with the added benefit of shifting left to move testing closer to the development cycle."
 

Cons

"HeadSpin could improve on the user interface because it is very poor."
"Support and pricing could be improved."
"HeadSpin needs to improve the hardware. With the mobile, the battery life reduces and must be continuously charged."
"If you want to do some testing or check the devices manually or check the application in a particular device manually, it is really laggy. That's a disappointment because sometimes we would like to do manual testing when our local devices are not available."
"HeadSpin could improve on the user interface because it is very poor. The checks that are done on the iOS devices are very difficult, but for Android, it runs great. For all iOS devices, the user interface and how it interacts with the device are very poor."
"Sometimes, devices go offline and some features are not functioning on some devices, specifically on iOS."
"They should automate their onboarding. A lot of things are still manual. They can create a video assistant or something like that to completely automate the entire process."
"There is a great scope to improve professional services; the time to deploy is quite long, and while they can set up automation through scripts at this stage, they are very expensive."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"Technical support is not good."
"Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously."
"The pricing could be improved."
"Because of all the problems and limitations of the UTF product, I would rate it at only a four out of ten (where ten is the best and one is the worst)."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I believe the licensing cost is cheap because it's a total solution, hardware, license and software."
"We have a yearly license for 16 devices."
"It has a yearly license. There is no other option. It is expensive. There are a lot of other cheaper players in the market, but it is like a Mercedes. You pay an extra premium for it, but you get the benefits. I would love to see them come up with project-based costing. Companies that are low on funds or new-age can do with pricing that is easily digestible. They can give them a pricing model for three months. They can provide a startup package."
"It's not cheap, but there are a few different packages and different prices for enterprises with different product versions."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"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."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"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."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Construction Company
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
8%
Performing Arts
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

No data available
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Zynga, Tinder, Pinterest, Akamai, Microsoft, Airbnb, Jam City, TMobile, Mozilla, CNN, Cognizant, Yahoo!, ebay, Quora, Walmart, Kohls, Telstra
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about HeadSpin vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.