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

OpenText Functional Testing vs SmartBear TestLeft 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 Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
SmartBear TestLeft
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
45th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.1%, down from 8.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestLeft is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.1%
SmartBear TestLeft0.5%
Other91.4%
Functional 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.
reviewer1378161 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Consultant at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
Simple to set up and the test execute feature is helpful, but the cost could be reduced
Our primary use case is Point of Sale (POS) testing The most valuable features are test executor and development. TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved. We have been using SmartBear TestLeft for the past month. Stability-wise, TestLeft is…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"UFT One has helped us to reduce testing timelines, going from 15 days to certify a release during our manual testing days to achieving that within five days with automation, while also improving quality, increasing test coverage from 80 percent to over 90 percent, and helping us identify defects earlier."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"The most valuable features are the API testing, the integration with DevOps and accessibility to people without a lot of technical skill."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
"My previous organization used UFT extensively for automation more than 500 complex end to end regression tests with considerable savings in time and effort."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test, freeing up the test team to work only on the new portions of the software without having to worry that they are introducing new errors in other areas without knowing it."
"The most valuable features are test executor and development."
 

Cons

"Additionally, there are hanging issues where it becomes unresponsive, which can be improved."
"The solution works for the most part, but the IDE is horrible (although I hear version 12 has a revamped IDE and is much better) and as a result of VBScript being the language, there is no stack trace information available so debugging some errors is not an easy task."
"When I ran the script for two or three times sequentially, the tool hung and wouldn’t respond."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"Because of SAP, I would rate the stability a five out of ten."
"Customer service is a big drawback. From my personal experience, after creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"In terms of what could be improved, they need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user and if we're going to spread this throughout the organization, we'll need to spend a whole lot of money."
"TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"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."
"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.""
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
"The cost should be reduced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional 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...
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
American Red Cross, CISCO, HONDA, ADIDAS, TBC bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, OpenText and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: August 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.