OpenText Functional Testing vs Perfecto comparison

OpenText and Perforce are both solutions in the Mobile App Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.8, while Perforce is ranked #5. OpenText holds a 16.0% mindshare in MTT, compared to Perforce’s 5.5% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of Perforce users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,163 Views
2,857 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Perfecto

Read 23 Perfecto reviews

3,522 Views
599 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Perfecto

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and Perfecto are leading tools in the realm of software testing, each offering distinct advantages. Based on feature-richness, Perfecto seems to have the upper hand, especially for cross-platform testing.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing supports various environments with object recognition, automation frameworks, and integration capabilities. It is effective for a wide range of technologies. Perfecto, a cloud-based tool, offers parallel execution, supports Selenium and Appium, and is ideal for browser and mobile cross-platform testing.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could improve in browser compatibility, resource management, and stability. Perfecto could enhance speed, device reliability, and network traffic monitoring. Reporting improvements are also desired by users.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing requires more complex on-premise installation compared to Perfecto's simpler cloud-first deployment. While OpenText receives praise for support, slow response times are a critique. Perfecto is appreciated for efficient and reliable customer service.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText is often viewed as expensive with a complex pricing model, though its extensive capabilities offer value. Perfecto is seen as competitively priced, especially its private cloud offerings, delivering strong ROI through improved testing efficiency and features.

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. Perfecto

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,733 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 Mobile App Testing Tools

2nd

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

5th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th)

Perfecto

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

14th

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

5th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

20th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (15th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 16.0%, down from 25.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Perfecto is 5.5%, up from 5.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Mobile App Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	16.0%
Perfecto	5.5%
Other	78.5%

Mobile App 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

Roland Castelino

QA Lead at BMO Financial

Its reporting allows us to have a clear view regarding what tests have been executed

The most valuable would be their Live Stream analysis, where I can see the live analysis of all the executions on a single device or multiple devices as well as track them. The live analysis and reporting would be the single most valuable feature. We leverage Perfecto’s reporting and analytics a lot. From the CI Dashboard, it is mainly the status, which is the past, failure count, and time consumption, e.g., how much time did an average test or script take? Along with that, it provides the historical view compared to the previous result, e.g., am I a pass or fail? Also, the stack trace is very important. Whenever a pass occurs, we don't look beyond that. However, whenever a failure occurs, the stack trace information that it gives us is pretty critical for us when figuring out where failures lie. It gives a summary for the pass/fail count, total test count, the historical view, time consumption for each test as well as the total tests, and the stack rate of the failure. Perfecto's analytics are very important since we use them on a daily basis. We run our executions daily. After every execution, we pull information from the Perfecto reporting system and share that with our stakeholders. Having this information accurately reported is pretty important for us, so everybody is aware of the current status of the product. That way, we can evaluate the health of the product or environment against that which has been executed. Therefore, it helps make those real-time decisions and highlights the impact to the business. I found Perfecto to be pretty easy to use while executing against cross-platforms. The main reason is because the same script or test automation where we execute on multiple platforms has minimal changes that I need to do. Also, it is easy for me to set up an execution on one platform, then on another platform, either in parallel or one after the other. Parallel opportunities save me time. Once the execution has been completed across these different configurations, I can always check and compare, e.g., what are the differences and consistencies? We utilize Perfecto’s cloud-based lab to test across devices, browsers, and OSs. I use it occasionally for manual testing. Though, there are other team members who use it more frequently than I do. I use it mainly for executing my automated tests. We have the Perfecto lab, cloud devices, and machines. I can program my test to execute against any of those devices, which gives me more confidence in my product. I can compare and see how my product or application functionally behaves across these different devices and from a UI point of view, which helps me a lot. The device lab is extremely important to our testing operations. We rely on having multiple devices up and running all the time. Whenever we kick off an execution, there are multiple reasons why executions may get triggered: * CodeCommit * A scheduled job. * Might be on-demand by any stakeholder. We need the lab to be available, as we need devices up and running for executions to take place. Also, the devices help since they allow us to have parallel execution, and not just wait for a sequential device to become free and available. Therefore, volume is definitely key. It also gives us an opportunity to compare execution across platforms in that space. It is extremely important to you that the lab provides same-day access to new devices since we analyze that data every single day after execution. Perfecto provides their own framework called Quantum Framework. That is one option. The other option is, if I want to have my own framework, I can have a Java-based Maven project, take a Selenium library, AppiumLibrary, and REST Assured library, and utilize the open-source framework. It is easy for us to connect to Perfecto, no matter what framework we use, as long as it has these core libraries in it. I can design and structure it any way that I want. The execution will happen in Perfecto no matter what since they have support for these tools or libraries. It is pretty neat that way. We are not dependent on using just one particular framework to use Perfecto. While there are still some framework limitations, there is the opportunity to use multiple, different open-source frameworks, then pass the execution to Perfecto. We can use most frameworks, then design and craft it any way that we want, then just pass the execution to Perfecto.

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

"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."

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

"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."

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

"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."

"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."

"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

"Their team is really great to work with. They're very flexible, and they always show care. They prioritize our work, our company, and our working relationship. I appreciate the ad hoc sessions that they schedule to provide help with troubleshooting, provide the information that we're looking for, or do a demo of a new feature that they have. They're always willing and very quick to get that scheduled for us. I appreciate that a lot."

"The most valuable feature is automated testing."

"It saves on the cost and effort of having to maintain our own virtual testing environment. Even our onshore team is not in the city that we work in, so that helps a lot. Even if we didn't invest a lot in getting multiple devices, having to share those devices would become a hassle."

"We're working in Agile and we need results ASAP. The fact that the lab provides same-day access to new devices is extremely important to us."

"The reporting feature is really tough to find in some of the other products that are competitors. Having your CITB type dashboard, where we can see the test results and see recordings of each test that passed or failed, is probably one of the distinguishing aspects of Perfecto."

"The number one feature, which if we didn't have out-of-the-box would be missed, is the fact that we have video execution. That gives us the ability to view errors or defects in the progression, from beginning to the end of the video."

"We are continuously doing testing on different environments, devices, and platforms. It executes seamlessly on multiple devices without having any connectivity issues. It has been really helpful for us to test on cloud devices."

"In terms of cross-platform testing, they offer all of it, every device available in the market. It covers real scenarios that mimic production so that we don't miss out on any devices that our clients might be using to run the applications we develop. It's been great and very helpful."

More Perfecto pros

Cons

"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."

"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."

"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."

"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."

"The user interface could be improved"

"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

"There was a discussion about having the capability to export the test results to a certain tool that we use in our project. If that were added it would be great not having to manually take screenshots, put them in a document, and share them on the different test management tools."

"We don't use Perforce's BlazeMeter with Perfecto. From my perspective, it's not really relevant."

"Going by the dashboard or analytics capabilities that Perfecto or Perforce is looking to offer in its roadmap, it will certainly help if they also cater to executing and enabling decision-making, rather than just focusing on standard testing metrics such as execution, efficiency, and defect rate. These are good metrics, but they don't necessarily enable decision-making for SLTs. Any improvements in the dashboards and reporting tools should focus on metrics or SLAs that can help with decision-making."

"It is slow compared to physical device testing. The interactive speed could be improved."

"The monitoring features, in particular network traffic monitoring, could be improved."

"If we could run an accessibility test in Perfecto against builds, it would help us a lot. Currently, that's a very manual process for us. We haven't found a tool that can do accessibility scans for iOS and doesn't depend on engineering effort. Having a feature related to that would be really awesome for us."

"The flakiness, or the accuracy, of the test execution can be improved. Also, the responsiveness of their cloud lab could be improved as well."

"Its performance should be improved. Anything to speed up the user interface would be a great help. We've had a lot of pain with their migration from a product UI that was based on Adobe Flash to the new product that is based on HTML5. Migrations like that seemed to be very painful and not a real smooth process. We're still sort of recovering from that migration from old technology to new, and we haven't got all the functionality ported over that we used to have on the old UI."

More Perfecto cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's an expensive solution."

"The tool's price is high."

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

"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."

"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 licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

"Perfecto's price is excellent compared to other products with similar features. It was the lowest of the three we evaluated. We also established a partnership with Perfecto, so they provide discounts when we sell Perfecto projects and licenses to our customers."

"Perfecto is about 30-40% cheaper than Device Anywhere. That was a big reason why we switched. Perfecto also solves some of the issues that we had with Device Anywhere. We have grown by 100% since we started to use Perfecto, and now we have devices roaming. When we look at the competition, we would still stick with Perfecto."

"It's definitely on the higher end of prices for this type of service."

"Pricing-wise, it is fine. It is not as expensive as what we used to have in the past from HP, IBM, and others. It is decently priced."

"Pricing is an area where Perfecto can do a little better. When we obtain additional licenses, we enter into negotiations with them."

"This is an expensive solution compared to others, by 30% to 40%."

"Although Perfecto is a good product for us to use, it is a bit expensive. It takes management a bit of work to find the appropriate funding for us to keep Perfecto. I imagine there could be some way to make it more accessible."

"I am not sure about its pricing, but from our perspective, licensing has been easy. Anytime I have new users or requests for users that want to get added, it's a very simple process. I just give the architectural owner of the product the name and email address, and they're able to easily add a new user. We don't have any issues in regards to getting licenses, but I don't have any insights into pricing."

More Perfecto pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Healthcare Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	1
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	23

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 18% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% 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

BrowserStack vs Perfecto

Compared 24% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Perfecto

Compared 18% of the time

Appium vs Perfecto

Compared 7% of the time

LambdaTest vs Perfecto

Compared 5% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs Perfecto

Compared 3% of the time

More Perfecto Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

January 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

Perfecto

January 2026

Download Perfecto product report

Also Known As

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

Perfecto Mobile, Perfecto Web

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

Perfecto is a cloud-based mobile app testing tool that is designed to help test applications on different operating systems and devices. The solution lets users automate processes related to advanced test scenarios and access browser versions and devices according to individual requirements. With Perfecto’s smart test execution capabilities, teams can manage testing across web and mobile platforms using a single script, conduct parallel testing for large test suites, and design advanced user-based test scenarios to accelerate app release cycles. The solution is also helpful for IT departments, providing insights into biometrics, device vitals, audio injection, network throttling, packet loss, and rotation data to meet desired end-user conditions that align with business priorities.

Perfecto Features

Perfecto has many valuable key features. Some of the most useful ones include:

Live Stream analysis
Reporting/analytics
Activity dashboard
Action-word testing
Bug tracking
Debugging
BDD & codeless automation
Model-based testing
Real-time monitoring
Role-based permissions
User management
Test failure analysis
Real user simulation

Perfecto Benefits

There are many benefits to implementing Perfecto. Some of the biggest advantages the solution offers include:

Streamlined test creation: When you use Perfecto, test creation is easy for your teams. Testing frameworks, like Appium, allows you to scale automated test scripts without any issues.

Scalable test execution: Perfecto enables you to accelerate your mobile app testing and is elastically-scaled with no single point of failure, so you can get the testing cadence you need. In addition, the solution makes it possible for you to execute tests from within IDEs as well as through CI servers like Jenkins.

Superior application quality for mobile: By using Perfecto, you can maximize continuous testing and shift quality by combining the solution with BlazeMeter. Together, these two solutions can help you measure mobile user experience, produce high-quality test data on demand, and create realistic mock services.

AI-driven test automation dashboards: The solution’s unique dashboards and heatmaps give you high-level visibility with timelines and trends.

Cloud-based lab: Perfecto’s Smart Testing Lab gives you the tools you need to quickly test your mobile app against thousands of permutations.

Reviews from Real Users

Perfecto is a solution that stands out when compared to many of its competitors. Some of its major advantages are that it has fantastic testing, reporting, and automation capabilities.

Roland C., QA Lead at BMO Financial, says, “The most valuable would be their Live Stream analysis, where I can see the live analysis of all the executions on a single device or multiple devices as well as track them. The live analysis and reporting would be the single most valuable feature.”

Andy B., Systems Engineer at a financial services firm, writes, “I really love the interaction it has with mobile devices, the testing capabilities, as well as reporting capabilities that we get from the application. Perfecto is excellent when it comes to executing cross-platform testing.”

A Director, QE Automation & Analytics at a financial services firm, says, “The most valuable feature is cloud-based automation and testing.”

Another PeerSpot reviewer, Kristina B., Product Manager at a manufacturing company, states, “The solution allows us to do seamless cross-platform testing, saves time, and comes with excellent customer service.”

Perforce

Sample Customers

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

Virgin Media, Paychex, Rabobank, R+V, Discover

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. Perfecto

January 2026

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing vs. Perfecto

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Perfecto and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Functional Testing vs. Perfecto report.

See our list of best Mobile App Testing Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation Tools vendors.

We monitor all Mobile App 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.