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

IBM DevOps Test UI 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

IBM DevOps Test UI
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
25th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 1.6%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.8%, down from 9.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.8%
IBM DevOps Test UI1.6%
Other90.6%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HZ
Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada
Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support
The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to how it works with the browser and the startup takes some time. Adjusting those changes to speed up the load time will improve the solution.
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

"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"By automating regression test suites using this product, we were able to show time savings of more than 1200 hours in less than ONE year."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester, which analyzes the changes in UI elements and allows me to automatically adapt and change my automation testing."
"Robust API provides quick turnaround for developers to understand and automate functional test case quickly."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"As it is built on Ellipse/Java and costs less than other tools, it is recommended."
"It is 100% compatible with all sorts of database integrations and is compatible with all types of open source TFT-based applications, which makes it a great product to have."
"UFT is easy to use for functional testing, so for me it’s very important that it can travel across a large range of technologies."
"UFT One has helped us to reduce testing timelines, going from 15 days to certify a release during our manual testing days to achieving that within five days with automation, while also improving quality, increasing test coverage from 80 percent to over 90 percent, and helping us identify defects earlier."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"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."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"The solution is in the top list for automatic functional testing."
"The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests."
"It's simple to set up."
 

Cons

"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"With version 8.5 we faced workspace crash issues frequently."
"It does not fully justify being a paid tool, and it needs improvement."
"If in the future there is no support for mobile applications, then we will be using it less."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"The object repository used for identifying objects can be made better. It has been noticed that the RFT tool is unable to identify some objects, due to which we are unable to add them to the object repository."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"UFT still requires some coding."
"This tool is good for programming experts."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"Stability can be an issue, and the weaker the resources on the machine running UFT the more likely there will be problems."
"The solution is expensive."
"HP has a policy that software updates for the QTP/UFT products are only available to licensed users with a service agreement. However this policy extends beyond version upgrades to software patches, and the problem this poses is that any potential customer that downloads the tool for use with a 30-day trial license must work with an unpatched version that is often less stable than the patched version in use by licensed long-term customers."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."
"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."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"The price is reasonable."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

IBM Rational Functional Tester
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Edumate
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.