OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

OpenText and Progress Software are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.8, while Progress Software is ranked #24. OpenText holds a 2.8% mindshare in FT, compared to Progress Software’s 1.1% mindshare. Additionally, 78% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Progress Software users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 39 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews

1,852 Views
1,611 Comparison Views

78% willing to recommend

Telerik Test Studio

Read 5 Telerik Test Studio reviews

1,210 Views
895 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Telerik Test Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and Telerik Test Studio vie in software testing solutions. Telerik Test Studio often has the edge due to its comprehensive features and superior ease of use.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers advanced customization options, extensive integration capabilities, and support for complex test scenarios. Telerik Test Studio features intuitive scripting, a powerful automation framework, and a user-friendly interface for rapid test development.

Room for Improvement: OpenText could benefit from enhanced user interface simplicity, faster deployment processes, and smoother integration with cloud services. Telerik Test Studio may improve by offering more advanced customization, better handling of complex test scenarios, and expanding support for diverse environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText's highly integrative deployment model aligns with corporate IT ecosystems while providing responsive customer support for complex implementations. Telerik Test Studio facilitates rapid deployment with a cloud-based model and delivers accessible, comprehensive customer support.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText involves a higher setup cost justified in environments needing extensive integration, but offers considerable ROI in such scenarios. Telerik Test Studio presents a more attractive pricing model, delivering significant ROI by streamlining testing processes and enhancing efficiency.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Telerik Test Studio Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Telerik Test Studio

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,295 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 Functional Testing...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

12th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

11th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Telerik Test Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

24th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

26th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Load Testing Tools (15th), Regression Testing Tools (12th)

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.8%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.1%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Eitan Gold

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.

Read full review

Raghvendra Jyothi

Manager Project Management at Capgemini

Very good performance and load testing capabilities

There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

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

"We have UI controls in Infragistics logic that have been identified by OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, but those controls are not supported by TestComplete, which is what I find most valuable."

"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."

"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."

"Integrates well with other products."

"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."

"In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints."

"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."

"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."

"The performance and load testing are very good."

"The way it identifies elements is good."

"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."

Cons

"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."

"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."

"In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object."

"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."

"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."

"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."

"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."

"The price of the solution could improve."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."

"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."

"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."

"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."

"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"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 price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"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."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pricing and cost advice

"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."

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

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

20%

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Educational Organization

Computer Software Company

20%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Government

11%

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 46% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 13% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

Wikidi Testomato vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

Selenium HQ vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 29% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 19% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 18% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 11% of the time

UBIK Load Pack vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 9% of the time

More Telerik Test Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

August 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

August 2025

Download Telerik Test Studio product report

Also Known As

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

No data available

Overview

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers robust automation capabilities with support for complex algorithms, multi-platform testing, and developer-friendly integration using C# and Java, facilitating seamless testing transitions and efficient automation workflows.

This testing tool is highly valued for its integration with ALM and Jenkins, along with its developer-focused environment adaptable to Eclipse and Visual Studio. With AI-based object recognition, an object repository, and test framework integration, it bolsters DevOps practices while reducing IT workloads. Supporting UFT to LeanFT transition, it caters to SAP, Java, .NET environments, and more. Enhanced with stable automation, extensive protocol support, and both on-premises and cloud deployments, it targets performance, regression, and functional testing, while recording and screengrabs enhance automation capabilities. Future improvements could include expanded browser compatibility, enhanced JavaScript and mobile support, and better object recognition.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers?

Complex Algorithm Handling: Manages complex scenarios with ease, including fuzzy logic.
Developer-friendly: Enables coding in C# and Java, integrating seamlessly with popular IDEs.
AI-based Object Recognition: Enhances test automation through advanced object identification.
Extensive Protocol Support: Supports a wide range of protocols for diverse testing requirements.
Seamless Integration: Connects effortlessly with ALM and Jenkins, promoting continuous development.

What benefits can users expect when evaluating OpenText Functional Testing?

Efficient Test Automation: Streamlines test processes, optimizing resource allocation and reducing effort.
Multi-platform Flexibility: Facilitates cross-platform testing, accommodating desktop, web, and banking applications.
Reduced IT Workload: Simplifies automation tasks, decreasing the strain on IT resources.
Enhanced DevOps Support: Integrates well with DevOps practices for continuous testing advancements.

Organizations implement OpenText Functional Testing for complex test automation on desktop, web, and banking applications, supporting performance, regression, and functionality testing across environments like SAP, Java, and .NET. UFT aids in GUI, infrastructure, and ERP application automation, with deployment options including on-premises and cloud implementations. Enhanced screengrabs and recording features aid in practical test case development, while addressing emerging technology needs is a focus.

OpenText

Telerik Test Studio is an innovative and easy-to-use automated web, WPF and load testing solution. Test Studio tests support essential technologies like ASP.NET AJAX, Silverlight, PHP and MVC. Test Studio functional testing is a comprehensive yet cost-effective automated testing suite. Users can complete tasks quickly and easily with the product's point-and-click interface, which is augmented by Telerik-exclusive features like a visual storyboard and 3D element selection. Test Studio also offers script-less test automation for Silverlight applications. Test Studio load tests allow users to capture quickly capture, multiply and replay complex web traffic. Record HTTP traffic from desktop browsers, mobile devices and web services, and replay traffic with hundreds or thousands of virtual users spread across multiple machines. Fine-tune your load scenario with data binding, user authentication, and dynamic targets. Test Studio Mobile is an intuitive and easy to use test automation solution for Mobile application testing. Create tests once and test across multiple devices and OS's. The point and click functionality allows users to capture quickly and replay complex mobile testing functionality. There is no need to write a single line of code. Test against any number of real devices as you wish or through an emulator by connecting through Wifi. Test Studio for APIs helps customers verify the integrity and reliability of their APIs in an easy way and incorporate their API testing effort in their continuous testing and delivery process. Test Studio for APIs is used to determine whether APIs return the correct response for a broad range of commonly accepted requests, react properly to edge cases such as failures and unexpected inputs, as well as deliver the responses in an acceptable amount of time.

Progress Software

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Telerik Test Studio

July 2025

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Telerik Test Studio

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Telerik Test Studio report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation 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.