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

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Perfecto comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 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
7th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
10th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Perfecto
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
19th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
21st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (12th), Mobile App Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.8%, up from 3.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Perfecto is 2.3%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.8%
Perfecto2.3%
Other93.9%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
reviewer1963857 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Quality at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees
The network testing can be accessed from anywhere in the world, but the UI needs revamping
Recently, the network testing component where we can use Perfecto on devices has been the most valuable feature. There is very little competition out there in this regard. We use it for 4G and 5G testing of launched 5G and 4G brands. So, the network testing can be accessed from anywhere in the world. That is very valuable for us. Perfecto is very good when it comes to executing cross-platform testing. We have just gotten started on cross-browser testing. We already use Perfecto for the native-application testing on multiple devices. I think now we also use Perfecto for browser-related testing. So, all the cross-browser testing works well. We got a couple of licenses that we use. We can mostly see usage over time using the device logs. This is what matters the most to us, e.g., what team is using a device for how long. We use Cypress, and it supports it quite well. We use APM, and it also supports that quite well. We used to use the native quantum framework as well in the past, which was obviously well-supported, but now we have moved onto Cypress and APM. Also, we have Applitools, which is not open source, but a paid proprietary tool.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Customer Service: The support in the alpha/beta test phase was especially good."
"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."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"When they've been working with it for a while and they see the complexity when you're doing real and tough test situations, then they see that this kind of tool is very, very good."
"LeanFT's been very good."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."
"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."
"It has saved hours of manual testing time, costs and efforts."
"The reporting feature is really tough to find in some of the other products that are competitors. Having your CITB type dashboard, where we can see the test results and see recordings of each test that passed or failed, is probably one of the distinguishing aspects of Perfecto."
"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."
"The number one feature, which if we didn't have out-of-the-box would be missed, is the fact that we have video execution. That gives us the ability to view errors or defects in the progression, from beginning to the end of the video."
"The most valuable feature is automated testing."
"The Perfecto device lab has allowed us to run tests on multiple devices at the same time and across multiple platforms as well, increasing the efficiency of our testing and saving money, time, and effort while enabling comprehensive testing and high app quality that we otherwise wouldn't be able to achieve."
"There are a whole bunch of things that I like about the solution, but I really love the interaction it has with mobile devices, the testing capabilities, as well as reporting capabilities that we get from the application. The reports are very detailed."
 

Cons

"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster."
"There are still some stability issues."
"As far as comparing to other products, the licensing costs for UFT are very high; the maintenance of the service contract was very high as well and, frankly — compared with more modern tools — it was and is not worth it."
"As the releases come, support for all technologies in the systems under test that UFT currently support will be the obvious place for improvement."
"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."
"This solution is not scalable at all."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"The flakiness, or the accuracy, of the test execution can be improved. Also, the responsiveness of their cloud lab could be improved as well."
"Its performance should be improved. Anything to speed up the user interface would be a great help. We've had a lot of pain with their migration from a product UI that was based on Adobe Flash to the new product that is based on HTML5. Migrations like that seemed to be very painful and not a real smooth process. We're still sort of recovering from that migration from old technology to new, and we haven't got all the functionality ported over that we used to have on the old UI."
"I'm hoping they can support on-premises instances."
"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've had a couple of issues lately with videos not loading or browsers dying after some execution, although that happens very rarely."
"We don't use Perforce's BlazeMeter with Perfecto. From my perspective, it's not really relevant."
"In iOS, it needs improvements with some limitations."
"On the analytics side, Perfecto is in need of improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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 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."
"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."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It's definitely on the higher end of prices for this type of service."
"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."
"This is an expensive solution compared to others, by 30% to 40%."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise30
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise23
 

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.
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...
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
Perfecto Mobile, Perfecto Web
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Virgin Media, Paychex, Rabobank, R+V, Discover
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Perfecto and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.