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

Why PeerSpot?

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

19,772 Views
14,631 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: October 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

October 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 920,769 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 (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (2nd), 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

"The most valuable feature is the graphical workflow."

"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."

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

"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."

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

"The most valuable features are the API testing, the integration with DevOps and accessibility to people without a lot of technical skill."

"Its ease of use means we've been able to ramp up non-technical users and have them understand how to do general debugging very easily."

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

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."

"My company is very firefighting friendly, so the ROI was immense when it came to automation and the amount of time it took to get test suites and regression set up."

"The most valuable feature is the automation of the tests, which saves us a lot of time, especially during the regression tests."

"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

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

"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."

"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."

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

"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."

"The problem with the solution is that you need to have highly specialized skills in order to make the scripts."

"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."

"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."

"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."

"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."

"It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari. That's a very key requirement for my organization."

"The solution does not have proper scripting."

"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"The tool's price is high."

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

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

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

"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."

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

920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

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	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 19% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Compared 12% of the time

TestingWhiz vs Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Compared 12% of the time

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

Compared 9% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Micro Focus Service Test [EOL]

Compared 8% of the time

More Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] 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

Functional Testing Tools

October 2026

Download Micro Focus Service Test [EOL] product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

October 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

October 2026

Download Free Report

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

920,769 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.