OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Perfecto comparison

OpenText and Perforce are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #6 with an average rating of 7.8, while Perforce is ranked #20. OpenText holds a 3.5% mindshare in FT, compared to Perforce’s 2.5% 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

5,462 Views
4,424 Comparison Views

78% willing to recommend

Perfecto

Read 23 Perfecto reviews

5,212 Views
3,179 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: June 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Perfecto

June 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 907,731 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

6th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

7th

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

20th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

21st

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (13th), Mobile App Testing Tools (6th)

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.5%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Perfecto is 2.5%, down from 4.3% 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	3.5%
Perfecto	2.5%
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

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

"Within a week, two of my global customers were able to leverage their automation through this solution, and the adaptability of how this slotted in was just amazing, which was incredibly efficient."

"LeanFT's been very good."

"The ability to evaluate live applications in our production environment for unusual behavior and determine problem areas and solutions is the most valuable aspect of this solution."

"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 most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."

"The Java and .NET programmers have said that "This tool is really good; we don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play, and it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us.""

"Once we upgraded to UFT Pro, it was an easy adoption, even though it's a commercial product, and it supports our approach in agile and DevOps deliveries really well."

"To the business, I would say overall it increases the amount of testing that gets done, with more people interacting with automating."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

"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 has definitely translated to cost savings and the reason is multifold."

"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 most valuable feature is automated testing."

"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 automated test reporting functionality is the most valuable feature. We use the CI Dashboard. It's very important as it is the main reporting tool for our automated tests."

"When the scripts are stable, Perfecto is awesome."

"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."

More Perfecto pros

Cons

"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."

"In the next release I'd like to see HP enable LeanFT to work with Sauce Labs."

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

"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

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

"Ultimately, due to the scripting, integration, and other functionality that is missing, we may switch to another solution in the future."

"I would rate technical support a one out of five."

"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

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

"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."

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

"I'm hoping they can support on-premises instances. We have been working on a JIRA integration with Perfecto—and I'm extremely impressed that they have that—but at this time they're not supporting onsite JIRA instances, which is what we have."

"It does well for mobile testing, but when it comes to the web aspect, it is lagging a little bit in terms of execution."

"Going by the dashboard or analytics capabilities that Perfecto or Perforce is looking to offer in its roadmap, it will certainly help if they also cater to executing and enabling decision-making, rather than just focusing on standard testing metrics such as execution, efficiency, and defect rate. These are good metrics, but they don't necessarily enable decision-making for SLTs. Any improvements in the dashboards and reporting tools should focus on metrics or SLAs that can help with decision-making."

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

More Perfecto cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

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

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

"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."

"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."

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."

"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."

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

"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."

"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-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."

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

907,731 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

16%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Construction Company

10%

Outsourcing Company

Financial Services Firm

20%

Construction Company

12%

Outsourcing 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

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 7% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 6% of the time

Sauce Labs vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 6% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 6% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

BrowserStack vs Perfecto

Compared 9% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Perfecto

Compared 8% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs Perfecto

Compared 6% of the time

TestMu AI (Formerly LambdaTest) vs Perfecto

Compared 5% of the time

Kobiton Mobile Device Testing vs Perfecto

Compared 2% of the time

More Perfecto Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

July 2026

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Buyer's Guide

Perfecto

July 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

June 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: June 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

907,731 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.