OpenText Functional Testing vs Testim comparison

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 10 Testim reviews

2,934 Views
1,643 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and Testim are competing automation testing tools. Testim seems to have the upper hand due to its advanced AI features offering a competitive edge.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers versatile test script creation, integration capabilities, and comprehensive test coverage. Testim provides AI-powered test authoring, execution, and self-healing capabilities, ensuring faster test creation and maintenance.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could enhance its support for modern testing frameworks, simplify its feature integration, and reduce setup complexity. Testim could improve its reporting capabilities, expand support for more frameworks, and enhance its advanced settings for complex scenarios.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing requires an initial setup with significant configurations and offers standard support options. Testim’s cloud-based model allows quick deployments with minimal setup and offers strong support with dedicated resources.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing has a higher initial setup cost with a longer ROI due to its comprehensive features. Testim provides agile pricing with faster ROI from quick implementation and reduced maintenance costs.

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

OpenText Functional Testing vs. Testim

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 Test Automation Tools

5th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th)

Testim

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

13th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

10th

Average Rating

9.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

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 Testim is 2.9%, up from 2.9% 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%
Testim	2.9%
Other	90.7%

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

Jyoti Mittal

Director - Quality Engineering at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees

Smart locators and small learning curve streamline test automation, minimizing maintenance and boosting efficiency.

Testim has a specific feature called a smart locator. Anyone experienced in test automation knows this is one of the most complex parts of developing automated scripts. The Testim feature automatically finds the locators, which helps us build stable test scripts. Stable scripts are crucial for receiving faster and more reliable feedback. I have also seen reduced maintenance due to smart locators, as it automatically finds locators for us even with minor application changes.

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 interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."

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

"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."

"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."

"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."

"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."

"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."

"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

"The product is easy to use."

"I have seen reduced maintenance due to smart locators, as it automatically finds locators for us even with minor application changes."

"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."

"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."

"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."

"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."

"The ease of learning and the small learning curve allowed us to scale the test scripts and the test suite quickly."

"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."

More Testim pros

Cons

"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."

"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."

"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."

"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."

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."

"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."

"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."

"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."

"There is currently no room for improvement that I can identify as of now."

"Faster scripting would be beneficial, as test creation is faster now."

"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."

"In the last couple of months, I have experienced some downtime where it wasn't working."

"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."

"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."

"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."

More Testim cons

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."

"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."

"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.""

"It's an expensive solution."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"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."

"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."

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

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools."

"The tool offers a fixed pricing model for our company."

"The solution is not expensive."

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

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

Educational Organization

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	3
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	4

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?

What do you like most about Testim?

The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature.

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Testim?

I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools.

What needs improvement with Testim?

More advanced AI-based features and features on the API side would help us create better end-to-end test suites.

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Comparisons

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

Tricentis Tosca vs Testim

Compared 22% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Testim

Compared 16% of the time

Functionize vs Testim

Compared 11% of the time

Testsigma vs Testim

Compared 6% of the time

Applitools vs Testim

Compared 4% of the time

More Testim Competitors

Product Reports

OpenText Functional Testing

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Download Testim 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

Testim is an end-to-end agile testing automation solution which utilizes machine learning for test authoring, execution, and maintenance. Users can create tests in minutes, run thousands of tests in parallel across different browsers, integrate with their existing CI/CD and collaboration tools, and more.

Sample Customers

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

Microsoft, salesforce, JFrog, USA Today, Globality

OpenText Functional Testing vs. Testim