Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Functional Testing vs pCloudy comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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 Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (4th), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (5th)
pCloudy
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
13th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 16.6%, down from 25.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of pCloudy is 2.4%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing16.6%
pCloudy2.4%
Other81.0%
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.
RM
Business Consultant at Tech Mahindra Limited
Helps applications to be compatible with other devices
The tool has connectivity issues. I had raised the issue with the support team who had asked me to check my internet connection and refresh the browser. I want that communication to be present at a UI level. I want a pop-up that asks users to refresh the page or check their internet connection. The product's reports also need to be optimized and refined to be presented in a better way. The tool needs to add a search option that will help users filter and extract the information that they need.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"The product is user-friendly. We can see the logs when we find the bugs."
"The product is very good on the UI level."
 

Cons

"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"Technical support could be improved."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"The connectivity is always a challenge for us."
"The tool has connectivity issues. I had raised the issue with the support team who had asked me to check my internet connection and refresh the browser. I want that communication to be present at a UI level. I want a pop-up that asks users to refresh the page or check their internet connection. The product's reports also need to be optimized and refined to be presented in a better way. The tool needs to add a search option that will help users filter and extract the information that they need."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"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."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a six-point five out of ten. It is neither too low nor high. The product has different packages like gold, silver, and platinum. The number of users is determined on the basis of the package. My company has subscribed for the product's annual plan."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
884,797 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
8%
Retailer
5%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise71
No data available
 

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
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Philips, Capgemini, Honeywell, Jio, Northwell Health, Swiggy
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. pCloudy and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,797 professionals have used our research since 2012.