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
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
SmartBear TestComplete Mobile
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
9th
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 November 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 21.8%, up from 19.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete Mobile is 2.1%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing21.8%
SmartBear TestComplete Mobile2.1%
Other76.1%
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

"Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One."
"I support UFT as the best solution due to the skill set needed to operate the tool."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"For us, object recording is the most valuable and most used feature."
"UFT One has good coverage of different environments and any Windows application or web application."
"It's a fine solution with good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The UFT tool can be such a huge boon to a testing organization that can commit to its use."
"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."
"The features I find most valuable is the automatic remapping of aliases, because it is really helpful."
"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

"I would like a version that works quicker. Also, a lot of people can't afford it because it's expensive."
"Additionally, there are hanging issues where it becomes unresponsive, which can be improved."
"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."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."
"There is a gap in technical support which is also part of our review. We've raised issues in the past, which have not been fixed in two years."
"I don't like this tool and I don't think that it's a successful example for automation."
"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."
"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."
"It is very difficult to use the aliases on old software, which hasn't been designed for us to test out."
"There are complaints about not detecting all objects in the browser. Sometimes in Chrome, it doesn't detect certain elements in the web application."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's an expensive solution."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"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."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App 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%
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.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.