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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Telerik Test Studio 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
Ranking in Regression 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
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (2nd)
Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
27th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
15th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
23rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (11th)
 

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 Telerik Test Studio is 1.8%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.5%
Telerik Test Studio1.8%
Other89.7%
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.
Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Project Management at Capgemini
Very good performance and load testing capabilities
There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests."
"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."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"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."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies."
"As with any test automation tool, the ability to run repeatable tests unattended during off hours saves lots of manual testing hours."
"For us, object recording is the most valuable and most used feature."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of the tests, which saves us a lot of time, especially during the regression tests."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"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."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The object repository is the most valuable feature, as different elements can be identified and reutilized through the repository across other scripts, and the product has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
 

Cons

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"Cost is the biggest issue with UFT. It is not cheap."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory."
"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."
"It often crashes."
"I would like a version that works quicker. Also, a lot of people can't afford it because it's expensive."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"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."
"We have not seen a return on investment yet."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"The first time I customized the solution, it was quite challenging."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"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."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"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."
"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."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"It's an expensive solution."
"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.
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%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
 

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
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: October 2026.
917,403 professionals have used our research since 2012.