Inflectra Rapise vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?

Inflectra and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. Inflectra is ranked #23, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 7.8. Inflectra holds a 1.5% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText’s 8.5% mindshare. Additionally, 85% of Inflectra users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Inflectra Rapise

Read 7 Inflectra Rapise reviews

4,005 Views
1,602 Comparison Views

85% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

19,772 Views
12,456 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Inflectra Rapise

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

OpenText Functional Testing and Inflectra Rapise are software testing solutions. OpenText Functional Testing has strengths in deployment and customer service, while Inflectra Rapise is preferred for its features and long-term ROI.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing highlights scalability, integration abilities, and comprehensive test management for complex enterprise environments. Inflectra Rapise emphasizes flexibility, adaptability, and scriptless testing options, excelling in web and mobile application testing.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could benefit from enhancing its user interface and expanding its script customization features. Improvements in mobile application testing support could solidify its market position. Inflectra Rapise may improve with a more streamlined user experience and better initial setup support. Addressing performance issues in large-scale deployments could enhance its usability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing offers a straightforward deployment process with extensive customer support, aiding quick setup and resolution. Inflectra Rapise features a flexible cloud-based deployment, which may take longer to configure, but adapts well to varied environments. OpenText has a slight edge with more accessible customer service.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing, with its moderate setup cost, ensures significant ROI via reliable, enterprise-oriented solutions. Inflectra Rapise, with a higher initial cost, promises better long-term ROI owing to its robust feature set across platforms, appealing to those aiming for advanced functionalities.

To learn more, read our detailed Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: September 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing

September 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 920,929 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

Inflectra Rapise

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

23rd

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Robotic Process Automation (RPA) (39th), AI Quality Assurance (4th)

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (2nd)

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Inflectra Rapise is 1.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.5%, up from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	8.5%
Inflectra Rapise	1.5%
Other	90.0%

Test Automation Tools

Featured Reviews

WIllWorley

Software Consultant at The New Humanitarian

The tool needs to improve in the areas of security, though it is a versatile product

Inflectra Rapise needs to expand its ability. I spoke with Inflectra's executive account rep on the need to expand the tool's ability. The problem with Inflectra Rapise is that a lot of companies are still using SAP GUI. Inflectra has no intention of building Rapise in a way that allows it to interact with SAP GUI. Inflectra Rapise has very limited value for the companies I work with because they they still use SAP GUI since their top priority is SAP testing, and they want to get into automation, for which they need a tool that cannot only used to automate processes, but can also do end-to-end testing where you are not only using SAP GUI, but you are using the interface with old legacy systems that are still in use or with today's more modern technologies. In the future, the tool needs to increase its versatility. If I am at a company that uses 23 different technologies, like .NET Visual Basic, Oracle, SQL, or whatever, Inflectra Rapise needs to be made as a product that is an out-of-the-box usable tool for any technology.

Read full review

Badari Mallireddy

QA Automation Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees

Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development

I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…

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

"We saved thousands of dollars because the Rapise implementation gave us 30 or more executions for every release compared to three or four, so huge savings on manual testing effort plus easy detection of defects is very cost effective."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is its versatility."

"The initial setup was straightforward; it wasn't complex at all, and we found it nice and easy."

"The first time I used Rapise I completed the automation scripts for a full application in a day and I was shocked how easy it was."

"It's pretty straightforward to set up."

"We always use the product for end-to-end automation test cases."

"Rapise is a good automation tool that's easy to use and learn, and you can share scripts as a team, which is very helpful."

"It's incredible but the support and maintenance of Inflectra Rapise's scripts is less than 30% of the effort that was involved in maintaining Selenium, it is very easy and this is the reason that we are switching everything that needs handling from Selenium to Inflectra Rapise, as it is easy to maintain and provides a benefit in cost and efforts with a 90% reduction factor in the maintenance of the scripts."

More Inflectra Rapise pros

"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."

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

"Our current project features more than a 1000 manual test cases, which took several days and resources to execute, and now the suite executes in six hours and less than two when run on multiple machines."

"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."

"It's scalable on the enterprise level; I have already scaled a project with UFT One at enterprise level, and I am using it because it is very scalable compared to open-source tools and many other tools on the market."

"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."

"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."

"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"It has some stability issues where the tool crashes sometimes on Windows 10."

"When there are failures in a nightly run of batches of scripts, it can create a blocking situation where all the following scripts will fail due to unexpected results."

"The maintenance is very difficult. We've only been using the platform for three months, so I'm not sure if that will continue, but right now it's an observation I've had."

"Inflectra Rapise needs to expand its ability."

"What I have noticed about Rapise is that sometimes when you keep on using the same script, it fails many times."

"I faced one problem where it can't validate the colour of images and text. Also, it could not automate the mobile app, and this needs to be included."

"It would be good if there could be more integration of Inflectra Rapise, since not all customers use the same tool for test management and automation integration."

"The maintenance is very difficult."

"Sometimes you need a little bit more, but then HP help us to find it as they're knowledgeable troubleshooters."

"I would not recommend this solution to others who are considering it."

"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."

"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."

"This tool is good for programming experts."

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

"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."

"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay no more than $50 annually for support of each one of the licenses."

"I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where ten means very good pricing."

"The price is reasonable."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

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

"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."

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

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Comms Service Provider

19%

Outsourcing Company

14%

Construction Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Outsourcing Company

Construction Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	2
Large Enterprise	2

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?

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...

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

UiPath Platform vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 5% of the time

Automation Anywhere vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 5% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 5% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 3% of the time

Perfecto vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 2% of the time

More Inflectra Rapise Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 20% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra Rapise

October 2026

Download Inflectra Rapise product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

October 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

Rapise

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

Overview

Inflectra Rapise is a robust software testing tool designed to automate testing for desktop, mobile, and web applications. It offers flexibility for testing scenarios and supports both functional and regression testing, suited for end-to-end test management needs.

Inflectra Rapise integrates seamlessly with existing technologies, providing a comprehensive environment for test automation. With its scriptless test automation approach, users can rapidly create tests without needing deep programming skills. This empowers teams to improve productivity and efficiency. Rapise's user-friendly interface and its ability to handle complex testing scenarios make it a preferred choice among testing professionals.

What are the critical features of Inflectra Rapise?

Keyword-Driven Testing: Enables easy reuse of test scripts with minimal effort.
Web Services Testing: Supports verification of web API performance and reliability.
Cross-Browser Support: Allows testing across different web browsers to ensure compatibility.
Data-Driven Testing: Facilitates the execution of tests with multiple data sets for thorough coverage.
Mobile Testing Support: Provides testing capabilities for iOS and Android applications.

What benefits should users look for?

Reduced Testing Time: Increased automation reduces the need for manual testing, saving time and resources.
Improved Accuracy: Automation minimizes human error, leading to more reliable testing outcomes.
Enhanced Collaboration: Easy integration with team collaboration tools enhances communication.
Scalability: Adapts to different project sizes and complexities, ensuring versatile use.

Inflectra Rapise is implemented across numerous industries, including finance, healthcare, and retail, where precise and efficient software testing is crucial. Its adaptability means it can meet diverse testing requirements, making it indispensable for projects demanding rigorous QA processes.

Inflectra

OpenText Functional Testing is designed for ease of use, featuring strong object identification, AI capabilities, and multi-platform integration. Its VBScript simplicity and cross-browser, mobile support make it versatile for handling UI and API tests.

OpenText Functional Testing provides a seamless testing experience with powerful automation capabilities. Its integration with technologies like SAP and Oracle, combined with record and playback features, makes it a go-to tool for comprehensive testing environments. Users find value in its flexibility to streamline both UI and API tests. Challenges include high costs and resource usage, and there's a demand for broader programming language support and improved integration with CI/CD pipelines. Enhanced AI functionalities and better documentation are also requested.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Ease of Use: Simple scripting enhances the experience for testers.
Object Identification: Strong abilities ensure accurate testing.
AI Capabilities: Advanced AI features support testing automation.
Platform Integration: Compatible with SAP, Oracle and more.
Cross-Browser Testing and Mobile Support: Versatile testing across devices and browsers.

What benefits can users find in the reviews?

Automation Efficiency: Streamlines test executions saving time.
Versatility Across Technologies: Supports multiple platforms enhancing flexibility.
Scalability: Handles a wide range of testing requirements.
Improved Quality Assurance: Enhances the accuracy and reliability of tests.

OpenText Functional Testing is utilized in industries requiring robust testing frameworks like finance and healthcare. Companies automate web, desktop, and API applications, perform functional tests, and handle validations. Its adaptability to integration and broad technology support facilitates diverse testing needs.

OpenText

Sample Customers

- Soflab - RegEd - Intel - US Government

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

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing

September 2026

Free Report: Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Inflectra Rapise vs. OpenText Functional Testing report.

See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Automation 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.