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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Qualitia Automation Studio 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 Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (3rd)
Qualitia Automation Studio
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
33rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.0%, down from 9.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualitia Automation Studio is 1.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.0%
Qualitia Automation Studio1.2%
Other91.8%
Test Automation 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.
SY
Head Of Solutions at Test Yantra Software Solutions
Testing automation solution that is scriptless and is competitively priced compared to other solutions
The best feature of this solution is the fact that it offers scriptless automation. You don't need to know how to code or program to use it. Within four weeks, my team was up and running. This was the shortest possible ramp-up that we completed in my entire career The integrations for this…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"The Object Spy in UFT is very valuable for spying on controls in our mobile application and viewing their properties and values."
"My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it integrates well into your environment, is easy to use, easy to maintain, and makes your development efforts more efficient."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"UFT is easy to use so the QA team is not required to have much programming skills."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"Qualitia is a complete test automation tool where you can configure multiple test cases at once."
"The best feature of this solution is the fact that it offers scriptless automation. You don't need to know how to code or program to use it."
"The Qualitia technical support group is the best part of Qualitia."
 

Cons

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"It looks like User Acceptance Testing of the product is getting bypassed entirely because this design has precedence in UFT."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"We would like to see smart identification (captures a unique object during testing) work more reliably."
"I’d like to see them improve the number of objects recognized without customization, similar to TestComplete by SmartBear."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory."
"The integrations for this solutions could be improved, specifically for Slack."
"Licensing and missing import/export functionality was a problem."
"When using team city to run offline packages, Press Keys do not work, thus giving errors."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"Pricing is on a higher end but the competition was even more expensive. With this considered, it is a competitive solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation 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%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
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
Springer, PTC, ZS, Shaadi.com, JDA, Cbazaar
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Qualitia Automation Studio and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.