OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Perfecto comparison

OpenText and Perforce are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #9 with an average rating of 7.8, while Perforce is ranked #16. OpenText holds a 3.1% mindshare in FT, compared to Perforce’s 2.9% 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

4,067 Views
3,213 Comparison Views

78% willing to recommend

Perfecto

Read 23 Perfecto reviews

4,386 Views
2,895 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: May 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Perfecto

May 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 894,998 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

9th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

8th

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

16th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

19th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (14th), Mobile App Testing Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.1%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Perfecto is 2.9%, down from 4.6% 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	3.1%
Perfecto	2.9%
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

Glenford John

Product Manager, Device Integration at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees

Saves us $2.6 million per year, provides more efficient testing, and helps us strengthen relationships with vendors

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 is great at executing cross-platform testing. From a carrier perspective, it's all mobile, but we also have web applications. We used to be able to test on Symbian, Windows OS, Android, and iOS. Today, we can go on a big screen and test on Chrome, Firefox, Explorer, and other browsers. My team leverages Perfecto's reporting and analytics. When we start stress testing an application, we can look at all the reporting that comes from that, and we can tell at what part of the day the app is performing better. Our analytics are very important to us. Presentations are important, so it's good to have reports with graphs that show the time of day or how the app was performing for months at a time. We use those reports to screen capture, go with the data, and to show to upper management. We can do a comparison of one version performance to another version of the application or device performance. We utilize Perfecto's cloud-based lab to test across devices, browsers, and OSs. We are a carrier, so we have our devices with different OS versions of devices. Right now, it's mostly just Apple and Androids. Back in the day, they had many different versions of the OS, but the only other thing on top of that is web-based browsers. We don't test Linux, which is an operating system of Windows. We don't use Perfecto's cloud. We use our own devices because we test on only our organization's devices. Unless we do some kind of competitive analysis, it's not really a test; it's just a comparison to see how other solutions compare to ours. The range of open-source technologies that Perfecto supports is great. I have a team of contractors that report to me and do all the testing for our organization, and that team turns over every couple of years. We mostly utilize the in-house automation that is available for anyone who isn't a great programmer. They have support for all these other drivers, and they have something for non-programmers who want to automate their work, which is amazing.

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

"I believe the main feature for using it is the flexibility across different platforms."

"The fact that it is so easy to go between UFT with its large install base and LeanFT, whoever has used UFT will quite easily become productive with LeanFT, but with the added benefit of shifting left to move testing closer to the development cycle."

"The most valuable features are the object repository."

"Even with the problems that I have mentioned, I think that this is one of the best solutions on the market right now."

"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."

"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."

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

"I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

"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."

"It saves on the cost and effort of having to maintain our own virtual testing environment. Even our onshore team is not in the city that we work in, so that helps a lot. Even if we didn't invest a lot in getting multiple devices, having to share those devices would become a hassle."

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

"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."

"One of the good things about Perfecto is the scalability that it provides."

"Perfecto facilitates delivering the product on time, through the cloud devices, so that there is no impact to our end-users."

"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."

More Perfecto pros

Cons

"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."

"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."

"There are still some stability issues."

"Number one thing is we are an Oracle shop, so we do Oracle ERP testing, and that add-in from UFT, that technology is not in LeanFT right now."

"Technical support was not very good. We do reach out, but often they're unable to help."

"I'd like to not have to use Selenium. I'd like to be able to do headless scripting and not just always be UI serving."

"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."

"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

"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."

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

"One improvement would be speed of execution. If it is an iOS native app, we have noticed that the speed is a bit slower."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"One improvement would be speed of execution. If it is an iOS native app, we have noticed that the speed is a bit slower. Perfecto might need to make some improvements in this area."

"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."

More Perfecto cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

"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 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."

"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."

"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

"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."

"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."

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

"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."

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

894,998 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Performing Arts

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

22%

Construction Company

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	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

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 8% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 6% of the time

Sauce Labs 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

ReadyAPI Test vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 2% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

BrowserStack vs Perfecto

Compared 13% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Perfecto

Compared 10% of the time

TestMu AI (Formerly LambdaTest) vs Perfecto

Compared 5% of the time

Appium vs Perfecto

Compared 4% of the time

Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs Perfecto

Compared 2% of the time

More Perfecto Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

May 2026

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Buyer's Guide

Perfecto

May 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

May 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: May 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

894,998 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.