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

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Oracle Application Testing Suite 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 Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (10th)
Oracle Application Testing ...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
27th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (14th), Load Testing Tools (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.8%, up from 3.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle Application Testing Suite is 1.5%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.8%
Oracle Application Testing Suite1.5%
Other94.7%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Rishabh-Sharma - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Engineer at Cignity Technology
Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy
Oracle Application Testing Suite can improve by covering more browsers as compared to other solutions because they're considering the Edge browser as well, but the solution is working on different Windows operating platforms. For example, in our current Windows 2012 R2 server, if I want to automate the Edge browser, I need to upgrade that particular Windows to Windows 10.1 or some other Windows platform, because it's not supported in Windows 2012 feature. That is an issue. If cross-browsers can be incorporated, then support should be provided. There should be a single operating system where everything can be incorporated. I have faced issues with some indexing items. For example, the solution is able to derive some properties from the screen, such as button locations or text locations, but there are some elements, for example, unnamed buttons or text, where there is no name or ID or any other identifying information. Indexing doesn't always work, and we have to go to those elements manually and inspect them to determine their class, and then input that information into the system.

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 features are the object repository."
"The fact that it is so easy to go between UFT with its large install base and LeanFT, whoever has used UFT will quite easily become productive with LeanFT, but with the added benefit of shifting left to move testing closer to the development cycle."
"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."
"This is a good solution and I recommend it."
"We pretty much use that to streamline workflow and enable productivity in a business context in our business unit as well as in our IT shop, so just reducing workload on IT people as well as testing."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"LeanFT's been very good."
"Integrates well with other products."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"The function test feature is valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature, the recording feature is the prime feature that open script has, and I also like the connectivity with Oracle Forms as it is very compatible."
"The solution is scalable."
"I like the functional testing. There's a product inside OATS called OLT, Oracle Load Testing. You can do the load testing without depending on any other tool"
"This is the best tool I have used till today as it allows us to handle automation in variety of ways."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"I can organize test scripts pretty well."
 

Cons

"I didn't find them to be exceptionally good. They are very slow, and for every problem, they want you to raise a ticket."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"As the releases come, support for all technologies in the systems under test that UFT currently support will be the obvious place for improvement."
"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"OATS has some promising features that frankly we wish we could utilize, but so far we haven’t had much luck doing so."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"The test installation pretty much destroyed my computer’s laptop performance."
"OTM Test Report – We needed to develop custom reports as there is less flexibility."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"We have stability issues with the server logging off when a script runs from OTM."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"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."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"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."
"ORACLE is giving at a very competitive rates to all its customers, and its a simple licensing process."
"The price of the Oracle Application Testing Suite is not expensive. It is less expensive than other solutions."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The complete package, including load testing and performance analysis, has a licensing fee."
"Customers need to negotiate properly to get the tool at a lower price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
11%
Healthcare Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise30
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
OATS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Comic Relief UK, The Forestry Commission, TAFE SA, Silentnight Group, Victorian Department of Primary Industries
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.