LEAPWORK vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

LEAPWORK and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. LEAPWORK is ranked #21, while OpenText is ranked #5 with an average rating of 7.7. LEAPWORK holds a 1.6% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText’s 7.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of LEAPWORK users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

LEAPWORK

Read 3 LEAPWORK reviews

1,380 Views
1,380 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

7,884 Views
5,992 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

LEAPWORK

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and LEAPWORK compete in automation testing. LEAPWORK seems to have the upper hand due to its features and ease of deployment, despite OpenText being preferred for pricing and support.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers strong integration with enterprise ecosystems, advanced scripting capabilities, and extensive support for various testing frameworks. LEAPWORK provides a no-code platform, intuitive workflow automation, and a user-friendly interface, attracting teams focused on simplicity and usability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing supports robust enterprise deployment with detailed support, preferred by large enterprises. LEAPWORK allows rapid deployment with a no-code platform and proactive customer service, ideal for businesses seeking quick implementation.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing has a higher initial setup cost but offers a strong return on investment with its extensive features. LEAPWORK generally offers lower setup costs with a quicker ROI due to ease of use and efficient process automation.

To learn more, read our detailed LEAPWORK vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

LEAPWORK vs. OpenText Functional Testing

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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

LEAPWORK

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

21st

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

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

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (4th), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 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 7.1%, down from 10.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Automation Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	7.1%
LEAPWORK	1.6%
Other	91.3%

Test Automation Tools

Featured Reviews

Vijay Sawale

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…

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

"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."

"The UI is user-friendly."

"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."

"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."

"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."

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

"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"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."

"The initial setup is difficult."

"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 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."

"UFT still requires some coding."

"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."

"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."

"The user interface could be improved"

"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."

"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."

"The initial setup is complex."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We got a deal on it for the first year. We're paying $8,000."

"The product is not cheap."

"It's an expensive solution."

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

"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.""

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

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

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

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

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Financial Services Firm

Insurance Company

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	71

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...

See all answers

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 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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs LEAPWORK

Compared 26% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs LEAPWORK

Compared 10% of the time

ACCELQ Automate vs LEAPWORK

Compared 9% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs LEAPWORK

Compared 9% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs LEAPWORK

Compared 6% of the time

More LEAPWORK Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 18% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

December 2025

Download LEAPWORK product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

January 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

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

Overview

LEAPWORK is a no-code automation platform. This solution’s main purpose is to make it easy for business and IT administrators to automate repetitive processes.

LEAPWORK Features

LEAPWORK has many valuable key features. Some of the most useful ones include:

Hyper-visual debugging: LEAPWORK’s hyper-visual debugging leads to faster maintenance. LEAPWORK’s platform provides representation of issues either with a video recording of the run, a debug version of the automation flow that contains data-level insights, or an activity log.

Reusable sub-flows: With LEAPWORK, you can identify process steps that can resurface across different automation cases, which can then be turned into reusable sub-flows. The sub-flows can be used over and over across projects and teams.

Robust execution across multiple machines: LEAPWORK makes it possible for you to run automation in multiple environments at the same time. The solution also makes it easy to handle SSO scenarios and execute remotely.

Efficient scheduling: With LEAPWORK you can schedule automation flows to run during any time of day or night, in parallel, or on local, remote, and virtual machines, in the cloud, or even in closed networks. The scheduling feature can also be programmed to run once or repeatedly according to a recurring schedule.

Calendar assistant: LEAPWORK has an advanced calendar assistant that allows you to see what is running and when, which also helps you plan more strategically. In addition, the calendar assistant provides you with an overview of agent resource usage.

Workflow and assignee management: LEAPWORK enables you to segregate duties and to track contributors as needed, providing complete transparency so that managing hundreds of automation flows is more efficient.

Governance and compliance: LEAPWORK offers audit logs, video-based reporting, and dashboards, which helps you manage governance issues. LEAPWORK also provides compliance features to help your organization.

LEAPWORK Benefits

Some of the benefits of using LEAPWORK include:

Easy to learn: Since using LEAPWORK automates tests in minutes or hours rather than days, the platform is intuitive, simple, and easy to learn.

Low maintenance: LEAPWORK is designed with reusability built in, which helps decrease the maintenance burden on your QA and development teams and also results in fewer automation bottlenecks.

Reliable and secure: LEAPWORK is an enterprise-grade test automation solution that can be relied on as a secure product. It is also reliable since it works across all technologies.

Large data management: Large volumes of data can be managed easily. Data sources and dynamic values can be entered with visual connectors easily.

Good support and service: LEAPWORK has a team of specialists who are dedicated to supporting you with all your automation needs.

Built for DevOps: LEAPWORK is designed to Integrate seamlessly into your existing infrastructure and break down traditional communication barriers between business teams and IT departments.

Reviews from Real Users

PeerSpot user Timothy C., Founder and Chief Technologist at Spider Technologies, says, “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.”

LEAPWORK

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

Samutec

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

Buyer's Guide

LEAPWORK vs. OpenText Functional Testing

January 2026

Free Report: LEAPWORK vs. OpenText Functional Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about LEAPWORK vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our LEAPWORK vs. OpenText Functional Testing report.

See our list of best Test Automation 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.