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

"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."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"I believe the main feature for using it is the flexibility across different platforms."
"LeanFT integrates with our developers work-flow, so our developers can now perform automation using familiar tools, programming language, and IDE, which helps get the whole team involved in test automation."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"Every single feature on offer is valuable and useful."
"Since we started using the Quality Center for the integration of all Microsoft tools, things have been much easier for us."
"LeanFT's been very good."
"Perfecto has definitely saved us on the costs and efforts of having to maintain our own virtual test environment."
"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."
"Being able to run automated tests and see the success and failure rate of those runs every day has saved us a lot of time and helped us identify issues much sooner, which has improved the quality of our software."
"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."
"Overall, it results in huge cost savings for our company."
"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."
"The quality of our software has improved since we implemented this solution."
"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."
 

Cons

"In future releases, I'd like to see disruptors such as IOT and test drones."
"It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari."
"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"Since it was a slightly different way of doing things, it was a little complex."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"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 don't use Perforce's BlazeMeter with Perfecto. From my perspective, it's not really relevant."
"The flakiness, or the accuracy, of the test execution can be improved. Also, the responsiveness of their cloud lab could be improved as well."
"It would be ideal if there was a complete integration with other test management tools and other applications like HPLM, Micro Focus, or Microsoft Azure."
"We've had a couple of issues lately with videos not loading or browsers dying after some execution, although that happens very rarely."
"On the analytics side, Perfecto is in need of improvement."
"There was a discussion about having the capability to export the test results to a certain tool that we use in our project. If that were added it would be great not having to manually take screenshots, put them in a document, and share them on the different test management tools."
 

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 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."
"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 cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
921,338 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.
921,338 professionals have used our research since 2012.