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

OpenText Functional Testing vs SmartBear TestComplete Mobile 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 Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
SmartBear TestComplete Mobile
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 20.7%, up from 20.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete Mobile is 2.1%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing20.7%
SmartBear TestComplete Mobile2.1%
Other77.2%
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.
AhmedAllalen - PeerSpot reviewer
Development team leader / APPR at a government with 501-1,000 employees
Clicking playback and detecting application needs improves functionality
There are complaints about not detecting all objects in the browser. I have to check and verify, and sometimes I have to bypass certain steps, which is a problem. I need to check the solution to understand why it's too detailed to detect or think of the browser. I use Chrome. Sometimes in Chrome, it doesn't detect certain elements in the web application. That's the problem. Also, when I run tests, I cannot export different types of logs in the same document. When I run different tests, it provides different logs, and these logs cannot be put in the same document. I have to compile them manually. Additionally, the tool can manage WinRamp scripts. I would say SilkTest also allows me to run tests, and I can challenge the sequencing, but it doesn't always do this correctly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"You get rid of manual testing, which is a huge improvement."
"UFT is the only technology that enabled us to actually automate our core application."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"It is a stable solution."
"The UFT tool can be such a huge boon to a testing organization that can commit to its use."
"The features I find most valuable is the automatic remapping of aliases, because it is really helpful."
"There are a lot of features in this tool, making it more complete with click and playback and proper things, and it is very effective for detecting breaks and also for verifying the needs of the application before deploying it or when introducing a new product."
"I like that it offers internal methods for supported controls, it is very easy to code the tests, and Object Spy is also a good feature."
 

Cons

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"It often crashes."
"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."
"There were some issues with deployment and the integration into Solution Manager."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari. That's a very key requirement for my organization."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"It is very difficult to use the aliases on old software, which hasn't been designed for us to test out."
"We have three test runs for 60 tests and the first time it's green, the second time one fails and so on. It is not consistent, but this problem occurs also because some of the controls are not fully supported by TestComplete."
"There are complaints about not detecting all objects in the browser. Sometimes in Chrome, it doesn't detect certain elements in the web application."
"The mapping is pretty complicated because there are a lot of controls that are the same and if you have a long name with the object mapping it is easy to get confused."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is reasonable."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
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...
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete Mobile?
There are complaints about not detecting all objects in the browser. I have to check and verify, and sometimes I have to bypass certain steps, which is a problem. I need to check the solution to un...
What is your primary use case for SmartBear TestComplete Mobile?
The application is smaller than the transaction applications. It's a very delicate, complex application. Now I use it, however, it's just a test function for functional testing. I use TestComplete ...
What advice do you have for others considering SmartBear TestComplete Mobile?
It's straightforward to use. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
 

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
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.