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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Qualibrate comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText Functional Testing automates tasks, reducing testing time and costs, yielding significant long-term ROI and system compatibility.
Sentiment score
8.1
Users saved time, reduced defects, expedited market entry, and anticipated positive ROI with successful automation implementation.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.1
OpenText Functional Testing support is mixed, with responsive service but potential delays and escalations for technical issues.
Sentiment score
7.4
Qualibrate offers reliable support with quick responses, but some users note delays in acknowledging support requests.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText Functional Testing scales well with planning, though browser support and licensing issues require attention for seamless integration.
Sentiment score
7.3
Qualibrate efficiently supports scalable automated testing and increased workflow demands, accommodating diverse projects with plans for expansion.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText Functional Testing is generally reliable, but occasional stability issues arise, influenced by machine specs and implementation methods.
Sentiment score
7.8
Qualibrate is seen as generally reliable, with stability improvements and prompt support communication, but potential for further enhancement remains.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText Functional Testing needs enhancements in object identification, performance, cost, scripting support, mobile features, and open-source tool integration.
Qualibrate's reporting and integration need improvements, with users seeking better support, test designing, scheduling, and automated alerts.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText Functional Testing is costly but cost-effective due to robust capabilities and potential reductions in manual testing efforts.
Qualibrate provides cost-effective, flexible licensing, appealing to enterprises for its integration with SAP Solution Manager and competitive pricing.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText Functional Testing provides extensive platform compatibility, strong object recognition, and robust automation frameworks enhancing diverse testing environments.
Qualibrate simplifies test automation with a low-code interface, seamless SAP integration, and efficient process documentation and playback.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
The best features of OpenText Functional Testing include descriptive programming, the ability to add objects in the repository, and its ease of use for UI compared to other tools.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th)
Qualibrate
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
37th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
22nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
38th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 9.2%, down from 9.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualibrate is 0.3%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Badari Mallireddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development
I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…
FD
Reduces our testing time significantly, enabling us to release more frequently
The most valuable feature is the way it works, the usability. From the first setup, the user interface is the most beautiful. It's very nice the way you can recover things and make it work. We use the solution’s Test Planning & test Execution Scheduling features, and they are very important. They are easy to work with. We use SAP Solution Manager, and Qualibrate works with it, enabling us to manage all our tests, taking them from Solution Manager directly into Qualibrate. Because everything we do is in SAP Solution Manager, we are now able to do test automatization, combined with Qualibrate. All the defects are available in SAP Solution Manager and all the changes will be in Qualibrate, immediately. From Qualibrate, we see whether tests are good or not. We can create a test-related incident in Solution Manager for those that are not good, and Test Suite in Solution Manager will notify the person who has to rebuild it. That works very nicely.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
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 do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the public repository when using Object Spy and adding objects, as it currently stor...
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
AirFrance KLM, Provincie Noord Holland, Ministerie van Defensie, Nouryon, Bell Helicopter, Textron,
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Qualibrate and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.