OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Perfecto comparison

OpenText and Perforce are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.8, while Perforce is ranked #15. OpenText holds a 3.1% mindshare in FT, compared to Perforce’s 3.6% 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

2,186 Views
1,749 Comparison Views

78% willing to recommend

Perfecto

Read 23 Perfecto reviews

3,436 Views
2,371 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Perfecto

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

Perfecto and OpenText Functional Testing for Developers are leading solutions in the test automation software space. Perfecto seems to have the upper hand due to its strengths in cross-platform testing, scalability, and cloud deployment options.

Features: Perfecto offers advanced cloud-based features with comprehensive automation and testing capabilities across various devices and platforms. It excels in cross-platform testing and scalability, offering detailed reporting and integration with tools like Appium. Real-time testing is crucial for offshore teams. OpenText focuses on developer-friendly test automation with broad software compatibility, including Java and C#. It integrates well with development tools and offers AI-driven automation, ideal for complex test scenarios.

Room for Improvement: Perfecto can enhance its reporting capabilities, improve browser testing integration, and reduce cloud device lag. It also needs better integration with on-premises solutions and enhanced AI features for predictive analytics. OpenText needs more tester-friendly features, expanded browser and platform support, simplified automation processes, and improved integration with modern tools and APIs.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Perfecto is flexible with public and private cloud deployment offering excellent technical and customer support. Users commend its proactive technical assistance and responsive problem resolution. OpenText primarily supports on-premises setups but offers public cloud options. Customers recognize its reliable support in addressing technical issues and enhancing user experience.

Pricing and ROI: Perfecto is considered expensive but is valued for its extensive cloud capabilities and excellent support, delivering significant ROI through reduced infrastructure costs and enhanced testing efficiency. OpenText is seen as costlier for small businesses with pricing constraints limiting its adoption; however, its robust integration and specialized features justify the investment for larger enterprises needing comprehensive test automation solutions.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Perfecto Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Perfecto

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 879,927 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

12th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

10th

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

15th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

22nd

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (16th), Mobile App Testing Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.1%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Perfecto is 3.6%, down from 5.1% 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 for Developers	3.1%
Perfecto	3.6%
Other	93.3%

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

Roland Castelino

QA Lead at BMO Financial

Its reporting allows us to have a clear view regarding what tests have been executed

The most valuable would be their Live Stream analysis, where I can see the live analysis of all the executions on a single device or multiple devices as well as track them. The live analysis and reporting would be the single most valuable feature. We leverage Perfecto’s reporting and analytics a lot. From the CI Dashboard, it is mainly the status, which is the past, failure count, and time consumption, e.g., how much time did an average test or script take? Along with that, it provides the historical view compared to the previous result, e.g., am I a pass or fail? Also, the stack trace is very important. Whenever a pass occurs, we don't look beyond that. However, whenever a failure occurs, the stack trace information that it gives us is pretty critical for us when figuring out where failures lie. It gives a summary for the pass/fail count, total test count, the historical view, time consumption for each test as well as the total tests, and the stack rate of the failure. Perfecto's analytics are very important since we use them on a daily basis. We run our executions daily. After every execution, we pull information from the Perfecto reporting system and share that with our stakeholders. Having this information accurately reported is pretty important for us, so everybody is aware of the current status of the product. That way, we can evaluate the health of the product or environment against that which has been executed. Therefore, it helps make those real-time decisions and highlights the impact to the business. I found Perfecto to be pretty easy to use while executing against cross-platforms. The main reason is because the same script or test automation where we execute on multiple platforms has minimal changes that I need to do. Also, it is easy for me to set up an execution on one platform, then on another platform, either in parallel or one after the other. Parallel opportunities save me time. Once the execution has been completed across these different configurations, I can always check and compare, e.g., what are the differences and consistencies? We utilize Perfecto’s cloud-based lab to test across devices, browsers, and OSs. I use it occasionally for manual testing. Though, there are other team members who use it more frequently than I do. I use it mainly for executing my automated tests. We have the Perfecto lab, cloud devices, and machines. I can program my test to execute against any of those devices, which gives me more confidence in my product. I can compare and see how my product or application functionally behaves across these different devices and from a UI point of view, which helps me a lot. The device lab is extremely important to our testing operations. We rely on having multiple devices up and running all the time. Whenever we kick off an execution, there are multiple reasons why executions may get triggered: * CodeCommit * A scheduled job. * Might be on-demand by any stakeholder. We need the lab to be available, as we need devices up and running for executions to take place. Also, the devices help since they allow us to have parallel execution, and not just wait for a sequential device to become free and available. Therefore, volume is definitely key. It also gives us an opportunity to compare execution across platforms in that space. It is extremely important to you that the lab provides same-day access to new devices since we analyze that data every single day after execution. Perfecto provides their own framework called Quantum Framework. That is one option. The other option is, if I want to have my own framework, I can have a Java-based Maven project, take a Selenium library, AppiumLibrary, and REST Assured library, and utilize the open-source framework. It is easy for us to connect to Perfecto, no matter what framework we use, as long as it has these core libraries in it. I can design and structure it any way that I want. The execution will happen in Perfecto no matter what since they have support for these tools or libraries. It is pretty neat that way. We are not dependent on using just one particular framework to use Perfecto. While there are still some framework limitations, there is the opportunity to use multiple, different open-source frameworks, then pass the execution to Perfecto. We can use most frameworks, then design and craft it any way that we want, then just pass the execution to Perfecto.

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."

"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."

"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."

"Integrates well with other products."

"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."

"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."

"We have UI controls in Infragistics logic that have been identified by OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, but those controls are not supported by TestComplete, which is what I find most valuable."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

"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."

"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 has affected our software quality in a good way. It has allowed us to execute on-demand and on-choice. We also track the number of issues that we find in the product. Every single day, we tag the issues that we found. For example, if something was found by automation, that means it was found by a Perfecto execution. Over time, we realized the real value in tracking those numbers. We can see now that we have clearly been finding issues earlier. It has allowed us to catch our defects earlier, thus improving the quality of our applications."

"The most valuable aspect of the solution is that it covers all types of devices on the market allowing you to test different versions of an operating system."

"In terms of Perfecto's ability to perform cross-platform testing, I would rate it a ten out of ten."

"The CI dashboard tool is very good, as is the Live Stream monitoring. Whenever I want to monitor execution, I can open multiple tabs in Perfecto and it is easy for me to refer to the CI dashboard and the Live Stream."

"We are continuously doing testing on different environments, devices, and platforms. It executes seamlessly on multiple devices without having any connectivity issues. It has been really helpful for us to test on cloud devices."

"The quality of our software has improved since we implemented this solution."

More Perfecto pros

Cons

"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."

"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."

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

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."

"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

"We have had some issues with performance, which is something that should be improved."

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

"When using devices on the cloud, it lags quite a bit at times. I know that these are real devices that are being projected on our laptop screens and monitors, but if the speed could be improved, that would be good."

"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."

"We've had a couple of issues lately with videos not loading or browsers dying after some execution, although that happens very rarely."

"There could be some improvements done on the interface. At times, there has been a bit of a struggle when finding things on the interface. A UI revamp would be a better option in future. That UI hasn't changed much in a long time, so I think they could just make it a bit better so that people could find stuff easily and intuitively."

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

"It is slow compared to physical device testing. The interactive speed could be improved."

More Perfecto cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

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

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

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

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

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

"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."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pricing and cost advice

"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."

"Perfecto's price is excellent compared to other products with similar features. It was the lowest of the three we evaluated. We also established a partnership with Perfecto, so they provide discounts when we sell Perfecto projects and licenses to our customers."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

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

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

879,927 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Performing Arts

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

23%

Computer Software Company

15%

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	29

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

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

See all answers

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 21% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 7% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 5% of the time

OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

BrowserStack vs Perfecto

Compared 26% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Perfecto

Compared 18% of the time

Appium vs Perfecto

Compared 9% of the time

LambdaTest vs Perfecto

Compared 6% of the time

Eggplant Test vs Perfecto

Compared 4% of the time

More Perfecto Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

December 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Buyer's Guide

Perfecto

December 2025

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 mobile app testing tool that is designed to help test applications on different operating systems and devices. The solution lets users automate processes related to advanced test scenarios and access browser versions and devices according to individual requirements. With Perfecto’s smart test execution capabilities, teams can manage testing across web and mobile platforms using a single script, conduct parallel testing for large test suites, and design advanced user-based test scenarios to accelerate app release cycles. The solution is also helpful for IT departments, providing insights into biometrics, device vitals, audio injection, network throttling, packet loss, and rotation data to meet desired end-user conditions that align with business priorities.

Perfecto Features

Perfecto has many valuable key features. Some of the most useful ones include:

Live Stream analysis
Reporting/analytics
Activity dashboard
Action-word testing
Bug tracking
Debugging
BDD & codeless automation
Model-based testing
Real-time monitoring
Role-based permissions
User management
Test failure analysis
Real user simulation

Perfecto Benefits

There are many benefits to implementing Perfecto. Some of the biggest advantages the solution offers include:

Streamlined test creation: When you use Perfecto, test creation is easy for your teams. Testing frameworks, like Appium, allows you to scale automated test scripts without any issues.

Scalable test execution: Perfecto enables you to accelerate your mobile app testing and is elastically-scaled with no single point of failure, so you can get the testing cadence you need. In addition, the solution makes it possible for you to execute tests from within IDEs as well as through CI servers like Jenkins.

Superior application quality for mobile: By using Perfecto, you can maximize continuous testing and shift quality by combining the solution with BlazeMeter. Together, these two solutions can help you measure mobile user experience, produce high-quality test data on demand, and create realistic mock services.

AI-driven test automation dashboards: The solution’s unique dashboards and heatmaps give you high-level visibility with timelines and trends.

Cloud-based lab: Perfecto’s Smart Testing Lab gives you the tools you need to quickly test your mobile app against thousands of permutations.

Reviews from Real Users

Perfecto is a solution that stands out when compared to many of its competitors. Some of its major advantages are that it has fantastic testing, reporting, and automation capabilities.

Roland C., QA Lead at BMO Financial, says, “The most valuable would be their Live Stream analysis, where I can see the live analysis of all the executions on a single device or multiple devices as well as track them. The live analysis and reporting would be the single most valuable feature.”

Andy B., Systems Engineer at a financial services firm, writes, “I really love the interaction it has with mobile devices, the testing capabilities, as well as reporting capabilities that we get from the application. Perfecto is excellent when it comes to executing cross-platform testing.”

A Director, QE Automation & Analytics at a financial services firm, says, “The most valuable feature is cloud-based automation and testing.”

Another PeerSpot reviewer, Kristina B., Product Manager at a manufacturing company, states, “The solution allows us to do seamless cross-platform testing, saves time, and comes with excellent customer service.”

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

December 2025

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: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

879,927 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.