No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

ACCELQ vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 22, 2026

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

ACCELQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
16th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
9th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in API Testing Tools
10th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
9th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (3rd), AI Quality Assurance (1st)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in API Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of ACCELQ is 0.9%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.5%, up from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.5%
ACCELQ0.9%
Other90.6%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Rohit Kumar Majji - PeerSpot reviewer
Quality Assurance Engineer at Amazon
Automation has transformed regression cycles and brings QA and non-coding testers together
The best features of ACCELQ are its codeless automation, self-healing, and the fact that it brings web, API, and mobile testing into one platform with good CI/CD integration. The biggest impact for our team is usually self-healing because it cuts down flaky test maintenance and keeps regression runs stable when UI elements change. The CI/CD integration helps by letting you trigger automation as part of the build and release flow, so tests run early, failures are visible faster, and the team gets feedback without manual coordination. To summarize, self-healing has had the biggest impact for us because it reduced maintenance and made our tests more stable, while the CI/CD integration helps a lot in daily work since we can trigger runs from pipeline and get faster feedback to catch issues before release. ACCELQ has positively impacted our organization by making our automation more stable, faster to maintain, and easier to scale across the QA team. It also helped us reduce the flaky tests, improve regression turnaround, and bring manual and automation testers onto the same workflow more effectively. One measurable improvement is that our regression cycle dropped from about five days to eight hours as I mentioned earlier. We also saw a noticeable reduction in flaky test maintenance, which helped the team spend more time on actual test coverage instead of fixing broken scripts. The platform is especially useful for mixed-skill teams because it lets both QA and non-coding users contribute without making the workflow fragmented.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We used ACCELQ to automate our regression suite for web and API flows, and it actually helped us cut the regression cycle from about five days to around eight hours."
"The platform contributes to faster test release cycles."
"We are a worldwide organization with a complex financial authorization matrix and when changes were made to this matrix, we provided automated test scripts and more than 20,000 tests were executed in 1 week."
"It's a fine solution with good out-of-the-box protocols."
"I was able to reduce regression and functional test times by 80%."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"At our company, we have everything from mainframe to modern web UI, and UFT allows us to test all of those sites."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
 

Cons

"ACCELQ can be improved in a few practical areas. It needs stronger reporting and analytics to help teams get clear visibility into execution trends, failure patterns, and coverage gaps."
"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."
"The solution works for the most part, but the IDE is horrible (although I hear version 12 has a revamped IDE and is much better) and as a result of VBScript being the language, there is no stack trace information available so debugging some errors is not an easy task."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"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."
"Cost is the biggest issue with UFT. It is not cheap."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"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."
"In cases of longer tests (in forms of so-called Mega Scripts), there can be a seriously huge usage of virtual memory by UFT that can lead to SystemOutOfMemory exceptions which are showstoppers and a huge annoyance."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"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."
"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."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"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.""
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
33%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with ACCELQ Automate?
ACCELQ can be improved in a few practical areas. It needs stronger reporting and analytics to help teams get clear visibility into execution trends, failure patterns, and coverage gaps. Smoother on...
What is your primary use case for ACCELQ Automate?
My main use case for ACCELQ is for end-to-end test automation for web and API testing, especially for CI/CD regression suites. We used ACCELQ to automate our regression suite for web and API flows,...
What advice do you have for others considering ACCELQ Automate?
I would advise others to start with a clear proof of concept and test ACCELQ against their real workflows, not just as a simple demo. It seems to work best when teams value maintainability, codeles...
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 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...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
 

Also Known As

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

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

FISCHER, optanix, ERICSSON, BenifitMall, QuickPivot, DIGITALFUEL, westcreek
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about ACCELQ vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.