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 7.7, while Cygnet.One is ranked #22 with an average rating of 7.0. OpenText holds a 7.1% mindshare in FT, compared to Cygnet.One’s 0.5% 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

7,884 Views
5,519 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

TestingWhiz

Read 1 TestingWhiz review

316 Views
246 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: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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 (6th), Test Automation Tools (5th)

TestingWhiz

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

22nd

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 January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.1%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TestingWhiz is 0.5%, 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	7.1%
TestingWhiz	0.5%
Other	92.4%

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

"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."

"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."

"It's simple to set up."

"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."

"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 production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."

"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."

"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."

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

"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."

"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."

"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."

"They should include AI-based testing features."

"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."

"Technical support could be improved."

"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."

"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."

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

"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."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"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 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.""

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"The price is reasonable."

"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."

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

881,082 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 18% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

SmartBear TestComplete vs TestingWhiz

Compared 41% of the time

Selenium HQ vs TestingWhiz

Compared 31% 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

December 2025

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

December 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, BrowserStack and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 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.