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

HeadSpin vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web 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

HeadSpin
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
31st
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Mobile APM (7th)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
18th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of HeadSpin is 2.4%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is 5.6%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web5.6%
HeadSpin2.4%
Other92.0%
Mobile App 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.
reviewer2356440 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Experienced ease in automation with strong support while seeking improvements in low-code options
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers flexibility of deployment, from on-premises to UFT One which is on the cloud. They provide capability for immediate deployment, and assets can be migrated easily. They include enablers specifically for quick migration of test assets. While I have not personally been involved in these migrations, I have observed some clients using it directly while others make a complete shift from OpenText to Tricentis platforms. There have not been many clients moving from OpenText platforms from on-premises to cloud because most shifts have been toward different product categories such as Tricentis altogether.

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. It was easy to configure and write a script."
"The most valuable features of the product are the performance parameters it gives us."
"It has an interesting feature called AV box testing. A lot of companies that are in the OTT segment don't really understand what their streaming is like. They can't test for streaming quality. There are restrictions where you cannot simulate live streaming. For example, on Netflix, you can't simulate how a movie is being streamed on a remote device. That's why HeadSpin has got this AV box testing feature. It is a patented feature. They send an AV box to your location, and you can test live streaming, which is something that no other company does."
"The most valuable feature is that this is the first connected intelligence all-in-one platform."
"The most valuable feature of HeadSpin it's the integration with other solutions. It is great. I can search for an element or do a quick debugging on the application right on HeadSpin. It's very useful."
"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."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"The product is easy to use."
"ROI is definitely present with OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web; these are very capable tools, and there is no reason ROI should be a challenge."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"Support and pricing could be improved."
"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 needs to improve the hardware. With the mobile, the battery life reduces and must be continuously charged."
"Sometimes, devices go offline and some features are not functioning on some devices, specifically on iOS."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web could benefit from implementing a low-code, no-code solution that aids in quick automation code preparation."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's not cheap, but there are a few different packages and different prices for enterprises with different product versions."
"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."
"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."
"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
"The product could be more affordable."
"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
University
6%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Non Profit
10%
Performing Arts
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
Digital Lab is a pretty solid product with areas that could be continuously improved on.
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
I deal with OpenText Analysis Database and Core Performance Engineering, which are categories of software rather than individual pieces. We focus on the ADM area, which includes ALM, UFT One, UFT D...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Zynga, Tinder, Pinterest, Akamai, Microsoft, Airbnb, Jam City, TMobile, Mozilla, CNN, Cognizant, Yahoo!, ebay, Quora, Walmart, Kohls, Telstra
Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
Find out what your peers are saying about HeadSpin vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.