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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Testim 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 Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
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)
Testim
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
14th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
10th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.8%, down from 9.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Testim is 1.9%, down from 3.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.8%
Testim1.9%
Other90.3%
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.
JM
Director - Quality Engineering at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees
Smart locators and small learning curve streamline test automation, minimizing maintenance and boosting efficiency.
Testim has a specific feature called a smart locator. Anyone experienced in test automation knows this is one of the most complex parts of developing automated scripts. The Testim feature automatically finds the locators, which helps us build stable test scripts. Stable scripts are crucial for receiving faster and more reliable feedback. I have also seen reduced maintenance due to smart locators, as it automatically finds locators for us even with minor application changes.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The fact that UFT One covers multiple technologies helps in terms of end-to-end scenarios."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"As with any test automation tool, the ability to run repeatable tests unattended during off hours saves lots of manual testing hours."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"Micro Focus' Unified Functional Testing tool is shaping up to return as a major contender in the test automation field."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"For the QTP/UFT projects I have worked on ROI is always over 300% in the long term."
"We primarily use the solution for business E2E testing, as it is fast and reliable, easy to maintain, and allows for the involvement of QA as well as Dev and BA."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The stability has been great; we can add stable tests very easily and improve our automation coverage, which allows us to deploy a new version into production every few days with minimum manual labor."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The feature I like most about Testim is the record and playback capability, which does not require writing a lot of code."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The Testim technical support is very responsive and worked with a specific team member on the First Databank side to answer hard technical questions and took enhancement requests as needed."
"The ease of learning and the small learning curve allowed us to scale the test scripts and the test suite quickly."
 

Cons

"It could be cheaper. I feel like it is a little expensive, but I never honestly understood the enterprise software space."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"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."
"UFT is rather slow in execution, and that’s something that needs to improve."
"Additionally, there are hanging issues where it becomes unresponsive, which can be improved."
"The user interface could be improved"
"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."
"When I ran the script for two or three times sequentially, the tool hung and wouldn’t respond."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"There is currently no room for improvement that I can identify as of now."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"In the last couple of months, I have experienced some downtime where it wasn't working."
"Faster scripting would be beneficial, as test creation is faster now."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"The price is reasonable."
"The tool offers a fixed pricing model for our company."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools."
"The solution is not expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
5%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise4
 

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 Testim?
More advanced AI-based features and features on the API side would help us create better end-to-end test suites.
What is your primary use case for Testim?
As a Quality Engineering leader, I'm responsible for testing our 20-25 applications. Manual testing is becoming increasingly challenging due to their growing scope and complexity. We've been automa...
What advice do you have for others considering Testim?
Before diving into this tool, it's highly recommended to have a basic understanding of Selenium and JavaScript. The company provides excellent training courses for free, and I strongly suggest comp...
 

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
Microsoft, salesforce, JFrog, USA Today, Globality
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Testim and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.