OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Perfecto comparison

OpenText and Perforce are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #9 with an average rating of 7.8, while Perforce is ranked #16. OpenText holds a 3.1% mindshare in FT, compared to Perforce’s 2.9% mindshare. Additionally, 78% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of Perforce users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 39 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews

4,067 Views
3,213 Comparison Views

78% willing to recommend

Perfecto

Read 23 Perfecto reviews

4,386 Views
2,895 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Perfecto

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

Perfecto and OpenText Functional Testing for Developers compete in the software testing category. Perfecto appears to have the upper hand with its comprehensive mobile and cross-platform coverage, while OpenText's integration with development environments is its key strength.

Features: Perfecto offers cloud-based architecture for manual and automated testing across mobile and web platforms, enhanced reporting with video execution, and robust support for open-source technologies like Appium and Selenium, allowing for parallel execution. OpenText, on the other hand, provides diverse protocol support, seamless integration with development tools like Eclipse and Visual Studio, and AI-driven test automation, simplifying test creation.

Room for Improvement: Perfecto could improve the speed of execution for iOS apps, reporting and connectivity, as well as expand its AI-powered insights. OpenText could benefit from enhanced cloud tool integration, improved support for modern protocols, and greater stability in continuous testing environments, especially in object recognition and parallel execution capabilities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Perfecto supports public, private, and hybrid cloud deployments, with responsive customer service, catering to distributed teams. OpenText primarily offers on-premises deployment with some cloud options, suitable for traditional IT environments, and is praised for technical support.

Pricing and ROI: Perfecto's pricing is higher but offers excellent value with its extensive device coverage and cloud-based features, reducing the need for physical infrastructure. OpenText is considered expensive, with high licensing costs potentially offset by its capabilities and integration options, adding value to complex environments despite cost concerns.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Perfecto Report (Updated: May 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Perfecto

May 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 896,099 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

9th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

8th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Perfecto

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

16th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

19th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (14th), Mobile App Testing Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.1%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Perfecto is 2.9%, down from 4.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers	3.1%
Perfecto	2.9%
Other	94.0%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Eitan Gold

SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities

OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

Read full review

Glenford John

Product Manager, Device Integration at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees

Saves us $2.6 million per year, provides more efficient testing, and helps us strengthen relationships with vendors

The automation piece is the most valuable feature. Every time we had a new version of either OS or an application, we found that being able to automate the testing across different devices is very valuable. Perfecto is great at executing cross-platform testing. From a carrier perspective, it's all mobile, but we also have web applications. We used to be able to test on Symbian, Windows OS, Android, and iOS. Today, we can go on a big screen and test on Chrome, Firefox, Explorer, and other browsers. My team leverages Perfecto's reporting and analytics. When we start stress testing an application, we can look at all the reporting that comes from that, and we can tell at what part of the day the app is performing better. Our analytics are very important to us. Presentations are important, so it's good to have reports with graphs that show the time of day or how the app was performing for months at a time. We use those reports to screen capture, go with the data, and to show to upper management. We can do a comparison of one version performance to another version of the application or device performance. We utilize Perfecto's cloud-based lab to test across devices, browsers, and OSs. We are a carrier, so we have our devices with different OS versions of devices. Right now, it's mostly just Apple and Androids. Back in the day, they had many different versions of the OS, but the only other thing on top of that is web-based browsers. We don't test Linux, which is an operating system of Windows. We don't use Perfecto's cloud. We use our own devices because we test on only our organization's devices. Unless we do some kind of competitive analysis, it's not really a test; it's just a comparison to see how other solutions compare to ours. The range of open-source technologies that Perfecto supports is great. I have a team of contractors that report to me and do all the testing for our organization, and that team turns over every couple of years. We mostly utilize the in-house automation that is available for anyone who isn't a great programmer. They have support for all these other drivers, and they have something for non-programmers who want to automate their work, which is amazing.

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

"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."

"If a company doesn't have people who are skilled in programming, they definitely should go with UFT, as it's simple to use and doesn't require programming knowledge."

"We pretty much use that to streamline workflow and enable productivity in a business context in our business unit as well as in our IT shop, so just reducing workload on IT people as well as testing."

"The solution is very scalable."

"The fact that it is so easy to go between UFT with its large install base and LeanFT, whoever has used UFT will quite easily become productive with LeanFT, but with the added benefit of shifting left to move testing closer to the development cycle."

"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."

"I believe the main feature for using it is the flexibility across different platforms."

"The good points in UFT are the cost, it's easy to use, the installation is quite clear, the licensing model is quite good, and the object recognition feature is very good."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

"Overall, it's a great solution."

"One of the good things about Perfecto is the scalability that it provides, as we are able to quickly scale up the devices and choose Android devices, web-based applications, or whatever we need, and we can scale up quickly and easily."

"We are able to offer a quality product that has been tested fully, which improves our customer satisfaction. That is a good thing. It has also reduced our IT infrastructure cost. We don't have to spend a lot on setting up infrastructure, which becomes redundant or obsolete very soon. It helps in offsetting that cost."

"Perfecto has affected our software quality in a good way; it has allowed us to catch our defects earlier, thus improving the quality of our applications."

"It saves on the cost and effort of having to maintain our own virtual testing environment. Even our onshore team is not in the city that we work in, so that helps a lot. Even if we didn't invest a lot in getting multiple devices, having to share those devices would become a hassle."

"It creates a faster production cycle and is quick to market. Things get deployed earlier because the testing happens on time. We can do a lot of panelization, so a lot of test phases can happen in a panel. People don't have to wait for a device to come to them. They can access multiple devices at the same time and do testing at the same time."

"We're working in Agile and we need results ASAP. The fact that the lab provides same-day access to new devices is extremely important to us."

"Performance-wise, Perfecto has been awesome."

More Perfecto pros

Cons

"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."

"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."

"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much."

"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster."

"Improvement is still needed for stability and performance."

"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."

"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."

"Technical support was not very good. We do reach out, but often they're unable to help."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

"So, overall, I would rate Perfecto a seven out of ten because sometimes, we also have lagging with some of the devices. We get error messages, but we're not quite sure what's causing them."

"We feel that Perfecto is a little slow. If they could improve on that slowness in accessing the app, when we want to click a button, that would be great because we feel the difference."

"The monitoring features, in particular network traffic monitoring, could be improved."

"The flakiness, or the accuracy, of the test execution can be improved. Also, the responsiveness of their cloud lab could be improved as well."

"The flakiness, or the accuracy, of the test execution can be improved."

"We feel that Perfecto is a little slow. If they could improve on that slowness in accessing the app, when we want to click a button, that would be great because we feel the difference. An improvement in the connectivity speed is required."

"I'm hoping they can support on-premises instances."

"We don't use Perforce's BlazeMeter with Perfecto. From my perspective, it's not really relevant."

More Perfecto cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pricing and cost advice

"Although Perfecto is a good product for us to use, it is a bit expensive. It takes management a bit of work to find the appropriate funding for us to keep Perfecto. I imagine there could be some way to make it more accessible."

"Pricing-wise, it is fine. It is not as expensive as what we used to have in the past from HP, IBM, and others. It is decently priced."

"I am not sure about its pricing, but from our perspective, licensing has been easy. Anytime I have new users or requests for users that want to get added, it's a very simple process. I just give the architectural owner of the product the name and email address, and they're able to easily add a new user. We don't have any issues in regards to getting licenses, but I don't have any insights into pricing."

"Pricing is an area where Perfecto can do a little better. When we obtain additional licenses, we enter into negotiations with them."

"It's definitely on the higher end of prices for this type of service."

"Perfecto is about 30-40% cheaper than Device Anywhere. That was a big reason why we switched. Perfecto also solves some of the issues that we had with Device Anywhere. We have grown by 100% since we started to use Perfecto, and now we have devices roaming. When we look at the competition, we would still stick with Perfecto."

"This is an expensive solution compared to others, by 30% to 40%."

"Perfecto has definitely saved us on the costs and efforts of having to maintain our own virtual test environment. We lost about 20 devices in the past to maintenance and audit. That was a massive loss for us, as a company, because we were giving devices to someone, but don't know whether we would get it back or not. Having those virtual labs, we don't need to worry about these kinds of things. We are easily saving $5,000 to $10,000 a month on device costing."

More Perfecto pricing and cost advice

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

896,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Performing Arts

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

21%

Construction Company

Manufacturing Company

Healthcare Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	12
Large Enterprise	30

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	1
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	23

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 8% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 6% of the time

Sauce Labs vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 5% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

BrowserStack vs Perfecto

Compared 12% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Perfecto

Compared 10% of the time

TestMu AI (Formerly LambdaTest) vs Perfecto

Compared 5% of the time

Appium vs Perfecto

Compared 4% of the time

BlazeMeter vs Perfecto

Compared 2% of the time

More Perfecto Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

May 2026

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Buyer's Guide

Perfecto

May 2026

Download Perfecto product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

Perfecto Mobile, Perfecto Web

Overview

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers robust automation capabilities with support for complex algorithms, multi-platform testing, and developer-friendly integration using C# and Java, facilitating seamless testing transitions and efficient automation workflows.

This testing tool is highly valued for its integration with ALM and Jenkins, along with its developer-focused environment adaptable to Eclipse and Visual Studio. With AI-based object recognition, an object repository, and test framework integration, it bolsters DevOps practices while reducing IT workloads. Supporting UFT to LeanFT transition, it caters to SAP, Java, .NET environments, and more. Enhanced with stable automation, extensive protocol support, and both on-premises and cloud deployments, it targets performance, regression, and functional testing, while recording and screengrabs enhance automation capabilities. Future improvements could include expanded browser compatibility, enhanced JavaScript and mobile support, and better object recognition.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers?

Complex Algorithm Handling: Manages complex scenarios with ease, including fuzzy logic.
Developer-friendly: Enables coding in C# and Java, integrating seamlessly with popular IDEs.
AI-based Object Recognition: Enhances test automation through advanced object identification.
Extensive Protocol Support: Supports a wide range of protocols for diverse testing requirements.
Seamless Integration: Connects effortlessly with ALM and Jenkins, promoting continuous development.

What benefits can users expect when evaluating OpenText Functional Testing?

Efficient Test Automation: Streamlines test processes, optimizing resource allocation and reducing effort.
Multi-platform Flexibility: Facilitates cross-platform testing, accommodating desktop, web, and banking applications.
Reduced IT Workload: Simplifies automation tasks, decreasing the strain on IT resources.
Enhanced DevOps Support: Integrates well with DevOps practices for continuous testing advancements.

Organizations implement OpenText Functional Testing for complex test automation on desktop, web, and banking applications, supporting performance, regression, and functionality testing across environments like SAP, Java, and .NET. UFT aids in GUI, infrastructure, and ERP application automation, with deployment options including on-premises and cloud implementations. Enhanced screengrabs and recording features aid in practical test case development, while addressing emerging technology needs is a focus.

OpenText

Perfecto is a cloud-based testing platform that supports automated and manual testing processes across many devices and operating systems, facilitating cross-platform and real-time data access. Users experience seamless testing integrations, although improvements are sought in some areas.

Perfecto provides extensive mobile testing capabilities across iOS, Android, and more, with automation and enhanced reporting options such as video recordings. While it excels with Appium and Selenium integration for cross-platform consistency and CI Dashboard features, it faces challenges in iOS web testing and hybrid apps. Users indicate the need for better integration with test management tools, dashboard metrics improvements, and machine learning features. Cloud device response times and UI interactions could benefit from performance enhancements, while users desire longer report history and API automation advancements.

What are Perfecto's most important features?

Cloud-based Architecture: Access a vast array of devices and OS versions for testing scalability.
Automation: Supports Selenium and Appium for streamlined testing processes.
Enhanced Reporting: Offers video recordings to help validate tests thoroughly.
Cross-platform Testing: Execute tests across multiple platforms efficiently.
Real-time Data Access: Monitor tests via CI Dashboard and Live Stream.

What benefits or ROI can users expect from reviews?

Increased Device Availability: Quickly access the newest devices and software updates.
Improved Testing Speed: Allow faster test execution and feedback loops.
Scalability: Easily scale up or down with cloud-based resources.
Enhanced Productivity: Automate tests and streamline reporting for efficiency.

Perfecto has broad applications in industries such as retail, finance, and technology, where secure and scalable testing is critical. Organizations employ it in both private and public cloud environments for mobile, web, and API testing. Its ability to provide extensive device coverage and integration into existing CI/CD processes makes it integral for ensuring reliable mobile app performance and compatibility across platforms.

Perforce

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Virgin Media, Paychex, Rabobank, R+V, Discover

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Perfecto

May 2026

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Perfecto

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Perfecto and other solutions. Updated: May 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

896,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Perfecto report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.