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

LEAPWORK 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

LEAPWORK
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
20th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of LEAPWORK is 1.7%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.0%, down from 9.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.0%
LEAPWORK1.7%
Other91.3%
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VS
Test Associate & Manager at IGT Solutions
The product has a user-friendly UI, and it provides good support, but it is expensive and difficult to setup
We are partners with the product. We use it for end-to-end automation. We can automate server-based and web-based applications. We can also do continuous integration and continuous delivery It is a low-code/no-code automation tool. The UI is user-friendly. It supports web-based and browser-based…
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

"The most valuable of this solution is the no code option. It offers drag and drop when it comes to development and removes the need for a developer."
"It provides automated testing. Instead of us doing manual testing, we can utilize Leapwork, and it tests most of our critical processes. In the next phase, we also plan to do some process work with it, such as using Leapwork to create reports or provide certain extracts of data."
"As a testing tool, it is great; it does exactly what we need it to do, and it is very robust in the number of features that you could support for testing."
"The UI is user-friendly."
"Anyone can use LEAPWORK because it is a no code solution that removes the need for a developer."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"At our company, we have everything from mainframe to modern web UI, and UFT allows us to test all of those sites."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"UFT is easy to use so the QA team is not required to have much programming skills."
"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 solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
 

Cons

"It is a very comprehensive tool, and there is a significant learning curve to being able to adopt the tool. Because it does so much, there is only so much that you can learn. You can, however, do some simpler things right away. They do have a kind of boot camp where some of their experts engage with you, and during that time, you can work on the top initiatives that you want to do, and that's a good process. After you start using the tool, there is a lot more that you would want to do."
"This solution could be improved by offering better reporting related to the integration into Azure DevOps."
"The only thing that I don't like about the product is the need to deploy agents on the laptops of people doing the testing."
"The initial setup is difficult."
"The only thing that I don't like about the product is the need to deploy agents on the laptops of people doing the testing. So, you have an agent on a server, then you have an agent on the laptop of the person who is doing the testing, and that seems like a lot of stuff and a kind of anti-cloud. Why do I have to deploy agents on people's machines in order to do something in the cloud? I'm sure they're doing that so they can monitor their licensing and all that stuff, but it is not necessarily a friendly process."
"When I ran the script for two or three times sequentially, the tool hung and wouldn’t respond."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"The solution is expensive."
"There are scenarios where the tool freezes and locks the user out."
"I’d like to see them improve the number of objects recognized without customization, similar to TestComplete by SmartBear."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"HP is very strong on the testing side, but in the last few years with the agile methodology it has lagged behind."
"Scalability can be high, but there are things that work against it. You're bound by the licensing structure, so in order to get bigger benefits, you have to have multiple copies, and that costs a ton of money."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is not cheap."
"We got a deal on it for the first year. We're paying $8,000."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"It's an expensive solution."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"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."
"The price is reasonable."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"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.""
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Insurance Company
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
6%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

Do you recommend Leapwork? How is Leapwork pricing?
Do you recommend Leapwork? I absolutely recommend Leapwork. In fact, I consider it to be one of the best test automation tools. I like it because it provides many benefits. Some of the ones I fin...
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

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samutec
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about LEAPWORK vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.