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

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 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
3rd
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
18th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 17.4%, down from 22.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is 5.7%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing17.4%
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web5.7%
Other76.9%
Mobile App Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
reviewer2356440 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Experienced ease in automation with strong support while seeking improvements in low-code options
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers flexibility of deployment, from on-premises to UFT One which is on the cloud. They provide capability for immediate deployment, and assets can be migrated easily. They include enablers specifically for quick migration of test assets. While I have not personally been involved in these migrations, I have observed some clients using it directly while others make a complete shift from OpenText to Tricentis platforms. There have not been many clients moving from OpenText platforms from on-premises to cloud because most shifts have been toward different product categories such as Tricentis altogether.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The return on investment for any company buying this product license is 100 percent, as businesses with clients increase productivity when manual tasks becomes faster and efficient by automating them with this tool."
"It's allowed business analysts to work with automation scripts without requiring them to have programming knowledge."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"It allows us to automate hundreds of test cases that would normally have to be manually tested."
"When compared with UFT and manual execution, we have definitely saved a lot of effort, somewhere in the range of 60 to 70 percent when compared with our efforts to manually test."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"The ideas and possibilities that this tool has are incredibly useful."
"The main benefit is that you can get a very quick idea regarding the performance of your application, and it also helps you discover hidden pain points that you would not have found without using this tool."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"The solution provides a controlled device farm with the right devices (selected based on analytics), that are readily available (can be reserved), have the right app and can be used for manual or automated tests."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"In general, in my opinion, Mobile Center is a good product that allows us to do everything we need to automate application testing for mobile."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
 

Cons

"When debugging code in UFT, it would crash, freeze and hang a lot."
"It’s in the middle and not always 100% reliable."
"In my opinion, the improvement of the object recognition of new technologies and the capacity to catch more performance info should be desirable."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"The solution works for the most part, but the IDE is horrible (although I hear version 12 has a revamped IDE and is much better) and as a result of VBScript being the language, there is no stack trace information available so debugging some errors is not an easy task."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"With versions prior to 2.0 I found that configuration was trickier than it should be, particularly with aspects such as NV."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"I don't think the product as it is right now is going to sell itself, but it's really what are the next steps."
"Because of connection errors, we've haven't yet been able to set it up properly at my company."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"However, it is still a young product that is improving leaps and bounds each release."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"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."
"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
"The product could be more affordable."
"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
6%
Computer Software Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Non Profit
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
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...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
Digital Lab is a pretty solid product with areas that could be continuously improved on.
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
I deal with OpenText Analysis Database and Core Performance Engineering, which are categories of software rather than individual pieces. We focus on the ADM area, which includes ALM, UFT One, UFT D...
What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
I do have experience with OpenText products and OpenText ALM. I have been using ALM Quality Center, which has had a few names for it over time, but it is the old Quality Center that was then rename...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.