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

IBM DevOps Test UI 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

IBM DevOps Test UI
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
25th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (12th)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (7th)
 

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 for Developers is 3.5%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.5%
IBM DevOps Test UI1.6%
Other94.9%
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.
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

"It helps in automation by using better object recognition as compared to other tools in the market."
"As it is built on Ellipse/Java and costs less than other tools, it is recommended."
"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."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"Robust API provides quick turnaround for developers to understand and automate functional test case quickly."
"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 technical support is good; at least their response time is good, and whenever we ask them for help regarding deployment customizations, custom code implementation, or other code needs, they heavily support us, assign us IT engineers who work alongside us helping with code-related issues, and stay until the problem is resolved."
"Once we upgraded to UFT Pro, it was an easy adoption, even though it's a commercial product, and it supports our approach in agile and DevOps deliveries really well."
"The most important thing about LeanFT is that it gives us the opportunity to introduce developer testing."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"If a company doesn't have people who are skilled in programming, they definitely should go with UFT, as it's simple to use and doesn't require programming knowledge."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"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."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
 

Cons

"It does not fully justify being a paid tool, and it needs improvement."
"With version 8.5 we faced workspace crash issues frequently."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"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."
"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."
"I didn't find them to be exceptionally good. They are very slow, and for every problem, they want you to raise a ticket."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"In the next release I'd like to see HP enable LeanFT to work with Sauce Labs."
"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."
"The tool is not the problem. The problem is that we can't get the tool working, because there are other issues."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"In future releases, I'd like to see disruptors such as IOT and test drones."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
 

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 is quite high compared to the competition."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"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 cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"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."
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%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

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 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

IBM Rational Functional Tester
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Edumate
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.