OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Testim comparison

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 10 Testim reviews

2,827 Views
1,555 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and Testim specialize in facilitating automated testing for developers. Testim is favored for usability, offering simplicity and ease of use, while OpenText is recognized for integration capabilities.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers provides robust integration with various development environments, a comprehensive suite for test management, and strong support for DevOps practices. Testim delivers AI-driven test automation, smart locator features for building stable test scripts, and a user-friendly recording capability that minimizes coding requirements.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers could enhance support for newer programming languages, improve cloud compatibility, and reduce setup complexity. Testim can improve by offering more integration options, enhancing test result analytics, and expanding support for legacy systems.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText offers a traditional deployment model requiring extensive customization but provides in-depth customer support appealing to enterprises. Testim features a quick, cloud-based deployment with minimal infrastructure needs and streamlined support that caters to agile teams.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves higher setup costs, justified by its comprehensive feature set and deep integration within existing systems, potentially leading to better long-term ROI for established enterprises. Testim provides more competitive pricing with quicker returns due to its low-overhead deployment and faster adoption, making it appealing for startups and tech-driven SMEs.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Testim Report (Updated: January 2026).

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Testim

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 Functional Testing...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

12th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

10th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Testim

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

11th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

8th

Average Rating

9.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.1%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Testim is 3.0%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Testim	3.0%
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers	3.1%
Other	93.9%

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

Jyoti Mittal

Director - Quality Engineering at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees

Smart locators and small learning curve streamline test automation, minimizing maintenance and boosting efficiency.

Testim has a specific feature called a smart locator. Anyone experienced in test automation knows this is one of the most complex parts of developing automated scripts. The Testim feature automatically finds the locators, which helps us build stable test scripts. Stable scripts are crucial for receiving faster and more reliable feedback. I have also seen reduced maintenance due to smart locators, as it automatically finds locators for us even with minor application changes.

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 automation of test cases."

"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."

"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."

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

"I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective."

"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."

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

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."

"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."

"I have seen reduced maintenance due to smart locators, as it automatically finds locators for us even with minor application changes."

"The feature I like most about Testim is the record and playback capability, which does not require writing a lot of code."

"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."

"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."

"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."

"The ease of learning and the small learning curve allowed us to scale the test scripts and the test suite quickly."

More Testim pros

Cons

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."

"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."

"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."

"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."

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

"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

"In the last couple of months, I have experienced some downtime where it wasn't working."

"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."

"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."

"Faster scripting would be beneficial, as test creation is faster now."

"There is currently no room for improvement that I can identify as of now."

"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."

"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."

"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."

More Testim cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

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

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

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

"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."

"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 pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pricing and cost advice

"The tool offers a fixed pricing model for our company."

"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools."

"The solution is not expensive."

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

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Performing Arts

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

Educational Organization

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	12
Large Enterprise	29

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	4

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.

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 do you like most about Testim?

The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature.

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Testim?

I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools.

What needs improvement with Testim?

More advanced AI-based features and features on the API side would help us create better end-to-end test suites.

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Comparisons

Compared 20% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 7% 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

OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Testim

Compared 27% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Testim

Compared 17% of the time

Functionize vs Testim

Compared 12% of the time

Testsigma vs Testim

Compared 6% of the time

Applitools vs Testim

Compared 4% of the time

More Testim Competitors

Product Reports

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download Testim 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

Testim is an end-to-end agile testing automation solution which utilizes machine learning for test authoring, execution, and maintenance. Users can create tests in minutes, run thousands of tests in parallel across different browsers, integrate with their existing CI/CD and collaboration tools, and more.

Sample Customers

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

Microsoft, salesforce, JFrog, USA Today, Globality

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Testim