Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] and OpenText Functional Testing are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. Additionally, 100% of Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText Functional Testing users who would recommend it.

Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Read 6 Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] reviews

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

13,011 Views
9,238 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

OpenText Functional Testing and Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] compete in the software quality assurance category. OpenText Functional Testing holds an advantage due to its robust automation scripting and integration capabilities, making it suitable for complex environments.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers comprehensive test coverage, advanced scripting flexibility, and strong integration with test management tools. Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] is preferred for API testing, efficient service validation, and its extensible framework for various technologies like REST and Java.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing can improve its ease of setup and streamline its support structure. Its scripting can also be made simpler for less technical users. Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] may benefit from enhanced integration capabilities, more intuitive user workflow, and additional support for new service technologies.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] provides straightforward deployment and effective support addressing integration issues, ideal for API testing environments. OpenText Functional Testing requires more configuration for optimal deployment but provides generic support that accommodates a broad range of applications.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing has a higher initial setup cost which is justified by its extensive test coverage, leading to higher ROI over time. Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] has a lower initial cost, making it appealing for projects focused on service testing, with ROI driven by efficiency and service validation.

To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: June 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

June 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 900,747 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

Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

1.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Functional Testing

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

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

Featured Reviews

it_user375834

VRM - Venue Results Manager at a sports company with 1,001-5,000 employees

It made it easy for the test team to monitor and measure test execution.

The most valuable features for us are Performance on execution Usage, once most of tasks are drag and drop, so you just need to drag the features during script preparation Integration with other ALM tools My team integrated test scripts from HP Service Test into HP QC ALM test management tool.…

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

"It has helped a lot in reducing the time that would be put in for a particular module."

"The data validation used to take a lot of time, and now through Service Test it is done within minutes."

"Service Test is user friendly and requires QTP developers a relatively minimal learning curve to catch up with any changes in features that may get introduced by newer versions."

"Service Test provides different opportunities in SOA testing, which helps us to provide better SOA solutions to clients."

"My team integrated test scripts from HP Service Test into HP QC ALM test management tool, which made it easy for the test team to monitor and measure test execution."

"The most valuable feature is the graphical workflow."

"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."

"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."

"Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One."

"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."

"UFT is an expensive tool that can save you a lot of time and effort and provide great value for money if used correctly, but also turn out as ineffective related to value-for-money if used the wrong way."

"It's a fine solution with good out-of-the-box protocols."

"For test automation, it helps to speed up the testing and to speed up the software delivery, especially for HPE UFT because you have lots of test automation tools."

"UFT has improved our ability to regression test, freeing up the test team to work only on the new portions of the software without having to worry that they are introducing new errors in other areas without knowing it."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"If the license server went down, all the HPST nodes would fail their automation tests, which would bring down the entire automated test infrastructure and people would think the current build was bad."

"They should come up with something like Fiddler to see the service status."

"Its pricing is a bit high when compared to other SOA testing tools."

"When an entire script is ready in the tool and there is a modification of WSDL at the final point, you need to form the code from scratch and there will be a lot of objects in the tool that wouldn't work after the inclusion of the new WSDL, which requires significant manual effort to fix."

"Service Test technology is primarily meant to test applications without user interface therefore falling short of helping in the test of UI applications unlike QTP."

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

"In my opinion, the improvement of the object recognition of new technologies and the capacity to catch more performance info should be desirable."

"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."

"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory."

"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."

"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."

"When the number of automation tests are very high, say 5000 to 10000, even with eight to 10 licenses, UFT can take over 24 hours for execution."

"Cost is the biggest issue with UFT. It is not cheap."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"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."

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

"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.""

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Construction Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	4

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?

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

Tricentis Tosca vs Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Compared 20% of the time

TestingWhiz vs Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Compared 19% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Compared 16% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Compared 11% of the time

Visual Studio Test Professional vs Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Compared 11% of the time

More Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 16% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

June 2026

Download Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

June 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

Service Test, HPE Service Test

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

Overview

Micro Focus Service Test is based on Virtual User Generator (VuGen) like Micro Focus LoadRunner software, which is code-centric and uses a technical interface that can be challenging for functional testing teams to utilize. It has also had instances of difficulty parsing some Web Services Description Languages (WSDLs) for complex services.

OpenText

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

John Lewis, SEED Infotech, Bajaj Allianz, TMNAS, Hexaware, Brewin Dolphin, A U.S. bank

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

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

June 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, OpenText and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: June 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional Testing 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.