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
8th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
9th
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
20th
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 (13th), Mobile App Testing Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.7%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Perfecto is 2.4%, down from 4.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.7%
Perfecto2.4%
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.
Rodrigo Candido Costa - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Quality and Automation Specialist at PRIME CONTROL
The solution saves us money because the cost of each license is 10 times lower than what we would spend to maintain infrastructure here
Sometimes, when the automated tests sync up or we have to debug remotely, we cannot interact directly with the device. We can interact with the code in the debugging tool, but we cannot directly click on the element on the screen or send other kinds of inputs to the device. This is possible with other tools. Also, it would be nice if there were some kind of API to get a list of available devices. Currently, we have to look at the web interface to see the available devices, but the pipelines can't do it on their own there. We always need to do this manually, so it would be better if this feature was automated.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"I would say the most valuable is that we can get people started off really quickly on solutions because we've been partners with HPE for a long time and it helps us tailor the product to our needs."
"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."
"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.""
"Overall, it has helped massively to speed up our testing efforts and not just from a device point of view."
"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."
"We have seen the biggest improvement in cost savings, initially saving $2.6 million a year just on roaming charges."
"It has saved hours of manual testing time, costs and efforts."
"Their team is really great to work with. They're very flexible, and they always show care. They prioritize our work, our company, and our working relationship. I appreciate the ad hoc sessions that they schedule to provide help with troubleshooting, provide the information that we're looking for, or do a demo of a new feature that they have. They're always willing and very quick to get that scheduled for us. I appreciate that a lot."
"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."
"Overall, it has definitely translated to cost savings and the reason is multifold."
"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."
 

Cons

"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."
"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"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 integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari."
"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."
"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."
"Previously, we used the cradle. Every time the mobile was blocking it, we would have to ask Perfecto to provide another one. That took a lot of time away from us."
"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."
"I'm hoping they can support on-premises instances."
"In iOS, it needs improvements with some limitations."
"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."
"The flakiness, or the accuracy, of the test execution can be improved. Also, the responsiveness of their cloud lab could be improved as well."
"Sometimes, when the automated tests sync up or we have to debug remotely, we cannot interact directly with the device."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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 licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"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."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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.
914,394 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
12%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Healthcare 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: September 2026.
914,394 professionals have used our research since 2012.