No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Business Processing Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
8th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Business Processing Testing is 1.0%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.7%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.7%
OpenText Business Processing Testing1.0%
Other95.3%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

RR
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.
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

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 of the solution is that even a nontechnical tester, like a functional tester or a business analyst, can use it once the components are ready."
"The big difference with BPT over conventional frameworks with which I have worked is that BPT allows me to separate test development from automation development."
"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
"We can now take test automation through the entire business process -- testing web service availability before automated test packs start, sending and retrieving data via web-services and control of all web service testing in a single tool, along with the GUI testing of business processes across a multitude of platforms from java web through to AS400 green screen terminal apps."
"This solution is very helpful to me, and I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"The BPT framework is very modular."
"Because everyone can create test cases, not only the quantity but also the quality is improved, which results in less defects in production."
"ROI is pretty good as the approach of framework allows virtually everyone to take part in designing test cases."
"LeanFT's been very good."
"The ability to evaluate live applications in our production environment for unusual behavior and determine problem areas and solutions is the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"Within a week, two of my global customers were able to leverage their automation through this solution, and the adaptability of how this slotted in was just amazing, which was incredibly efficient."
"OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio."
"This is a good solution and I recommend it."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"With the experience that I have, I think that it's very good, and I would recommend this solution to others."
"The Java and .NET programmers have said that "This tool is really good; we don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play, and it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us.""
 

Cons

"Test execution speed has been my biggest concern."
"Initial releases we used of the product (v12) were a little unstable, but with the release of v12.01, we had no further issues."
"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."
"Technical support lacks efficiency and all they do is to move in circles by opening new tickets and all the related stuffs without any intention of solving the real problem."
"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."
"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."
"To be honest, technical support is not that great."
"The only one I can really think of is speed to test execution."
"It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari."
"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."
"Because of all the problems and limitations of the UTF product, I would rate it at only a four out of ten (where ten is the best and one is the worst)."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"Improvement is still needed for stability and performance."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Construction Company
16%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Business Process Testing, Business Process Testing, HPE Business Process Testing
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Migros Bank AG
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.