Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

LEAPWORK vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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
19th
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
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (4th), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of LEAPWORK is 1.6%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 6.6%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing6.6%
LEAPWORK1.6%
Other91.8%
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

"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."
"The UI is user-friendly."
"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."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"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."
"​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"It's simple to set up."
"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."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
 

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."
"The initial setup is difficult."
"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. 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."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We got a deal on it for the first year. We're paying $8,000."
"The product is not cheap."
"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."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"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.""
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
8%
Insurance Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise71
 

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 do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
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...
 

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: January 2026.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.