OpenText Business Processing Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

OpenText Business Processing Testing and OpenText Functional Testing are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText Business Processing Testing is ranked #37, while OpenText Functional Testing is ranked #4 with an average rating of 7.7. OpenText Business Processing Testing holds a 0.7% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText Functional Testing’s 7.1% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of OpenText Business Processing Testing users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText Functional Testing users who would recommend it.

OpenText Business Processin...

Read 7 OpenText Business Processing Testing reviews

350 Views
284 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

7,884 Views
5,519 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Business Processin...

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and OpenText Business Processing Testing compete in enterprise automation. OpenText Business Processing Testing appears superior due to its robust feature set and comprehensive process validation, advantageous for environments needing detailed test management.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing provides scriptless automation, extensive test coverage, and supports numerous platforms. OpenText Business Processing Testing offers process-driven testing, seamless integration capabilities, and efficient validation of complex business processes.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could improve integration with third-party tools, reduce initial learning time for new users, and refine its compatibility with mobile testing. OpenText Business Processing Testing may need easier deployment options, enhanced reporting tools, and a more intuitive user interface.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing has straightforward deployment, aided by prompt customer support. OpenText Business Processing Testing requires more complex deployment but is supported by thorough customer service, facilitating efficient system integration and customer queries.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is cost-effective with a quicker ROI due to lower setup costs and increased automation productivity. While OpenText Business Processing Testing might have higher initial costs, it offers significant long-term ROI by improving process efficiency and automation scalability.

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing 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

OpenText Business Processin...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

37th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Business Processing Testing is 0.7%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.1%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	7.1%
OpenText Business Processing Testing	0.7%
Other	92.2%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Revanth Reddy

Consultant at Infrasoft Technologies

Helpful solution that enables us to execute our use cases

There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be a lot easier to understand if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this 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

"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."

"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."

"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."

"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."

"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."

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

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

"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."

"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."

"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."

"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."

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

"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."

"UFT still requires some coding."

"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."

"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."

"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."

"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."

"We'd like it to have less scripting."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"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."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"The price is reasonable."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"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."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"It's an expensive solution."

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

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	1
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	5

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

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 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 OpenText Business Processing Testing

Compared 50% of the time

More OpenText Business Processing Testing 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

OpenText Business Processing Testing

January 2026

OpenText Business Processing Testing report

Download OpenText Business Processing Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

January 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus Business Process Testing, Business Process Testing, HPE Business Process Testing

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

Overview

OpenText Business Processing Testing (BPT) test framework software will help you move from one-off manual testing and ad hoc functional automated testing to an architected approach with a library of reusable test components. BPT accelerates the move to component-based testing with an integrated test framework approach to creating a repository of reusable test modules that allow for changes to be made once, then propagated across your distributed agile teams to all affected tests.

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

Migros Bank AG

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing

January 2026

Free Report: OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing report.

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.