Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Functional Testing vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (5th)
Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
24th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
11th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
25th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (14th)
 

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 Telerik Test Studio is 1.5%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing6.4%
Telerik Test Studio1.5%
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.
Chirag N M - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Quality Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Supports multiple platforms and identifies elements in a good way
Instead of Telerik Test Studio, I'd recommend writing test cases in .Net so that in the future, if you move away from Telerik Test Studio to another tool, it would be easier for you. Your current code would be reusable. You won't have to change your test cases much. We wrote our code in a separate IDE, which was Visual Studio, and internally, we had the infrastructure to interact with Telerik Test Studio. All the internal logic that we needed for our purpose was implemented in .NET, and we used Telerik Test Studio for tests. I'd rate Telerik Test Studio an eight out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"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."
"OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier."
"OpenText Functional Testing has an impressive ability to connect to mobile devices and its ability to test so many different types of software, whether it be mainframe, APIs, mobile, web, or desktop."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
 

Cons

"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"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."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"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."
"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"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."
"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."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The price is reasonable."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
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
9%
Government
5%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise71
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 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.
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

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
Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.