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

OpenText Functional Testing vs TestingWhiz 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 Regression Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
TestingWhiz
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
22nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.1%, down from 9.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TestingWhiz is 0.8%, 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 Testing7.1%
TestingWhiz0.8%
Other92.1%
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.
VS
Test Associate & Manager at Opus Technologies
Low code features and good customization but needs more customer-requested features
We utilized the solution to showcase our capabilities to customers or clients, and demonstrate how it can save money and achieve a return on investment through automation The organization was able to provide customers with business solutions by giving demos of various tools, assisting in securing…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"My previous organization used UFT extensively for automation more than 500 complex end to end regression tests with considerable savings in time and effort."
"UFT One has good coverage of different environments and any Windows application or web application."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
"The UFT tool can be such a huge boon to a testing organization that can commit to its use."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"It's allowed us to perform functional testing (to verify a specific action or function of code) for each product update."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"TestingWhiz is a low code, no code tool with integration facilities, such as with Jira, and can be used over the cloud."
 

Cons

"In cases of longer tests (in forms of so-called Mega Scripts), there can be a seriously huge usage of virtual memory by UFT that can lead to SystemOutOfMemory exceptions which are showstoppers and a huge annoyance."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"The scalability is good, although it’s not without its problems."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"I would like to see them remove the shortcoming of working with .NET applications, as there is not much support provided for automating applications developed on .NET."
"The solution is 70-80% stable. Stability really depends on the servers or the license which we have installed."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"Some features need to be implemented based on customer customization requests, which are currently not available."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"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 licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
"The price is reasonable."
"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 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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,747 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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for TestingWhiz?
It is cheaper compared to other tools. The tool is web-based with various licenses, including professional and enterprise editions.
What needs improvement with TestingWhiz?
Some features need to be implemented based on customer customization requests, which are currently not available. Additionally, there is a need to improve the handling of less critical issues which...
What is your primary use case for TestingWhiz?
We utilized the solution to showcase our capabilities to customers or clients, and demonstrate how it can save money and achieve a return on investment through automation.
 

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
Verizon, IBM, Symantec, VMware, Hyundai, Choice Hotels, Intel, Autodesk, Frost
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, OpenText and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: June 2026.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.