OpenText Functional Testing vs TestingWhiz comparison

OpenText and Cygnet.One are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 7.8, while Cygnet.One is ranked #23 with an average rating of 7.0. OpenText holds a 6.4% mindshare in FT, compared to Cygnet.One’s 0.6% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Cygnet.One users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,163 Views
5,714 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

TestingWhiz

Read 1 TestingWhiz review

369 Views
292 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

TestingWhiz

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and TestingWhiz are products in the test automation category. OpenText Functional Testing seems to have the upper hand due to its comprehensive support and pricing structure, making it appealing to organizations requiring robust support systems.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing provides automation capabilities, integration versatility, and scalability. TestingWhiz offers scriptless automation, extensive integration options, and reduced coding complexities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing offers detailed deployment and comprehensive customer service. TestingWhiz provides simpler deployment but lacks extensive support services.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing has a high initial cost balanced by extensive services and strong ROI. TestingWhiz minimizes upfront investment with lower setup costs, ensuring good ROI through increased productivity.

To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,707 peers since 2012

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

4th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (5th)

TestingWhiz

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

23rd

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

10th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 6.4%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TestingWhiz is 0.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	6.4%
TestingWhiz	0.6%
Other	93.0%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Kevin Copple

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.

Read full review

Vijay-Sawale

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…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."

"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."

"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."

"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."

"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."

"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."

"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."

"OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

"TestingWhiz is a low code, no code tool with integration facilities, such as with Jira, and can be used over the cloud."

Cons

"We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing."

"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."

"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."

"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."

"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."

"UFT still requires some coding."

"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."

"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

"Some features need to be implemented based on customer customization requests, which are currently not available."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

"The price is reasonable."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

Information not available

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	71

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...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?

My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 17% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

SmartBear TestComplete vs TestingWhiz

Compared 39% of the time

Selenium HQ vs TestingWhiz

Compared 35% of the time

More TestingWhiz Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

January 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

January 2026

Download TestingWhiz product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

No data available

Overview

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

TestingWhiz is a Codeless Automation Testing Tool for Software, Web, Mobile, Database, Cloud, Web Services and API testing. It is pillared on a strong architecture combined with intuitive Automation Engine and short learning curve that promises to take your test automation to the next level.

Cygnet.One

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Verizon, IBM, Symantec, VMware, Hyundai, Choice Hotels, Intel, Autodesk, Frost

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

January 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, BrowserStack, Worksoft and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.