IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. IBM is ranked #26, while OpenText is ranked #3 with an average rating of 7.8. IBM holds a 1.6% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 7.1% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

IBM DevOps Test UI

Read 8 IBM DevOps Test UI reviews

1,693 Views
1,439 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

13,011 Views
9,238 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

IBM DevOps Test UI

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

OpenText Functional Testing and IBM DevOps Test UI compete in automated software testing. IBM DevOps Test UI appears to have an edge due to its affordability.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers thorough test coverage, comprehensive support for various technologies, and advanced test capabilities. IBM DevOps Test UI provides an easy-to-use interface, robust scripting capabilities with .NET and Java, and effective object recognition.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could lower its price and enhance its user interface. IBM DevOps Test UI might improve its integration capabilities, expand support for more third-party tools, and streamline its object repository management.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is noted for its extensive customer support and versatile deployment options. IBM DevOps Test UI is recognized for its ease of deployment and straightforward customer service interactions.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is perceived as costly but offers value through advanced features, justifying the expense for some. IBM DevOps Test UI stands out for its affordability, providing a favorable ROI for budget-conscious companies.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: June 2026).

Buyer's Guide

IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Functional Testing

June 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 900,644 peers since 2012

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

26th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

11th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

3rd

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 1.6%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.1%, down from 9.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	7.1%
IBM DevOps Test UI	1.6%
Other	91.3%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Hellen Zhang

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.

Read full review

Kevin Copple

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Robust API provides quick turnaround for developers to understand and automate functional test case quickly."

"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."

"As it is built on Ellipse/Java and costs less than other tools, it is recommended."

"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."

"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."

"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."

"It helps in automation by using better object recognition as compared to other tools in the market."

More IBM DevOps Test UI pros

"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."

"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."

"UFT One is 100 percent stable."

"The most valuable feature is the automation of the tests, which saves us a lot of time, especially during the regression tests."

"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."

"You get rid of manual testing, which is a huge improvement."

"As with any test automation tool, the ability to run repeatable tests unattended during off hours saves lots of manual testing hours."

"The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"If in the future there is no support for mobile applications, then we will be using it less."

"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."

"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."

"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."

"It does not fully justify being a paid tool, and it needs improvement."

"With version 8.5 we faced workspace crash issues frequently."

"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."

"If you look at today's current context, I wouldn't recommend RFT because there are far more advanced solutions and products available."

More IBM DevOps Test UI cons

"In cases of longer tests (in forms of so-called Mega Scripts), there can be a seriously huge usage of virtual memory by UFT that can lead to SystemOutOfMemory exceptions which are showstoppers and a huge annoyance."

"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."

"The core application that we're using in our company is a bit special and resistant to automation."

"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."

"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."

"It’s in the middle and not always 100% reliable."

"When debugging code in UFT, it would crash, freeze and hang a lot."

"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

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."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"It's an expensive solution."

"The tool's price is high."

"The price is reasonable."

"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

13%

Outsourcing Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Construction Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Construction Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	1
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	5

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	74

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Selenium HQ vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 8% of the time

Katalon Studio vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 8% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 8% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 7% of the time

HCL OneTest vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 6% of the time

More IBM DevOps Test UI Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 16% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 2% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

June 2026

Download IBM DevOps Test UI product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

June 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

IBM Rational Functional Tester

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

Overview

IBM DevOps Test UI offers robust automation testing features that support .NET and Java scripting. It integrates with IBM Rational Performance Tester and supports various applications, making regression testing and automation efficient.

IBM DevOps Test UI provides powerful object identification and third-party library integration. It adapts well to automation testing needs and integrates with testing management tools, including compatibility with Siebel, SAP, and more. Users perceive it as easy to implement and highly compatible with technology stacks, enabling enhanced automation efficiency. While improvements are needed in mobile app UI analysis and Linux application compatibility, it remains a strong choice for teams focused on automation testing.

What features make IBM DevOps Test UI stand out?

Support for .NET and Java scripting: Allows efficient script creation for diverse testing scenarios.
Robust object identification: Enhances precision in automation testing.
Integration with third-party libraries: Expands testing capabilities.
UI component tester: Facilitates smooth automation testing adaptation.
Test management tool integration: Works with tools like IBM Rational Performance Tester.
Compatibility with Siebel, SAP, and more: Supports testing across a wide range of applications.

What benefits do users seek in IBM DevOps Test UI?

Efficiency in regression testing: Proven track record of reliability in repetitive testing tasks.
Easy implementation: Simplifies integration into existing processes.
Broad technology compatibility: Supports a variety of testing environments.

IBM DevOps Test UI is employed extensively for website functionality testing and database integration. Entities within banking and telecom sectors frequently use it for test automation and data creation, often pairing it with IBM Rational Functional Tester to effectively meet testing demands.

IBM

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Edumate

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Functional Testing

June 2026

Free Report: IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Functional Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Functional Testing report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.