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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Oracle Application Testing Suite comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
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 is 8.7%, up from 8.3% 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 Testing8.7%
Oracle Application Testing Suite1.5%
Other89.8%
Functional 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.
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

"UFT is easy to use for functional testing, so for me it’s very important that it can travel across a large range of technologies."
"It's simple to set up."
"Its ease-of-use; it doesn’t take long to train staff on it, and our third-party script developers find it easy to up-skill staff to use UFT."
"The fact that it works with a vast number of technologies works for us because our internal customers use the tool for testing a lot of different applications."
"As with any test automation tool, the ability to run repeatable tests unattended during off hours saves lots of manual testing hours."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"It helped in running performance testing cycles and identifying the bottlenecks of the application, helping our clients to run their application successfully and smoothly."
"The Product as a whole is an integrated package with excellent co-relation with all Oracle Applications and any web-based application."
"This product can facilitate the lowering of test execution times for operational people, as the bulk of the repeating test steps can be taken away by automating the EBS regression set in OpenScript every release."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite's most valuable feature is it works very smoothly with all Oracle Java-based applications."
"Implementation of Oracle Application Testing Suite package has increased the overall efficiency."
 

Cons

"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"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."
"HP products sometimes have a lot of bugs to fix. You get in trouble sometimes because you want to adhere to some timelines, but then you find that the solution doesn't work."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"When the number of automation tests are very high, say 5000 to 10000, even with eight to 10 licenses, UFT can take over 24 hours for execution."
"HP is very strong on the testing side, but in the last few years with the agile methodology it has lagged behind."
"Prior to the past three years, we saw a lot of issues with stability and a lot of patching and concern from our internal customers that they couldn't rely on the tool to always be there when they needed it."
"Room for improvement would be for the reporting features. If they could improve the dashboards, that would be helpful."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"WebForms works fine, but scripting in the EBS forms option isn't very consistent and stable."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
"Improvements can be made in a number of protocol support areas, including enhanced Citrix support."
"There are certain bugs which were present but was cleared in subsequent releases of application, but still there is room for improvement in the Functionality testing tool when automating form-based applications."
"We have stability issues with the server logging off when a script runs from OTM."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
"ORACLE is giving at a very competitive rates to all its customers, and its a simple licensing process."
"Customers need to negotiate properly to get the tool at a lower price."
"The price of the Oracle Application Testing Suite is not expensive. It is less expensive than other solutions."
"The complete package, including load testing and performance analysis, has a licensing fee."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
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
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
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 Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
OATS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
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 vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.