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

OpenText Functional Testing vs SmartBear TestLeft comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 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

OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
SmartBear TestLeft
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
45th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.5%, up from 8.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestLeft is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.5%
SmartBear TestLeft0.5%
Other91.0%
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.
reviewer1378161 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Consultant at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
Simple to set up and the test execute feature is helpful, but the cost could be reduced
Our primary use case is Point of Sale (POS) testing The most valuable features are test executor and development. TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved. We have been using SmartBear TestLeft for the past month. Stability-wise, TestLeft is…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool."
"Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One."
"For us, object recording is the most valuable and most used feature."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"The fact that it works with a vast number of technologies works for us because our internal customers use the tool for testing a lot of different applications."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"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."
"Supports desktop, web and mobile product automation."
"The most valuable features are test executor and development."
 

Cons

"Getting it to interact with ALM nicely has been a challenge for us sometimes."
"The core application that we're using in our company is a bit special and resistant to automation."
"Unfortunately, the issue was not resolved. I was told that the answer from the Micro Focus support team was not helpful."
"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’d like to see them improve the number of objects recognized without customization, similar to TestComplete by SmartBear."
"I would like a version that works quicker. Also, a lot of people can't afford it because it's expensive."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's an expensive solution."
"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."
"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."
"The price is reasonable."
"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 solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The cost should be reduced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
917,403 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
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 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...
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
American Red Cross, CISCO, HONDA, ADIDAS, TBC bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, OpenText and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: October 2026.
917,403 professionals have used our research since 2012.