Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Selenium HQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
5.9
OpenText Functional Testing reduces test automation time and costs, increasing ROI by 70-80% compared to manual testing.
Sentiment score
6.6
Selenium HQ reduces testing time, increases ROI, and offers cost-efficient automation, despite needing skilled users for optimal performance.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.6
OpenText Functional Testing support is generally effective but inconsistent, with improvements noted and suggestions for enhancing responsiveness.
Sentiment score
6.0
Selenium HQ's open-source model means no official support, but extensive community resources offer effective help for troubleshooting.
Initially, it was quite poor, but it seems they are making efforts to improve.
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
For technical support, I would give them an eight because whenever we have a concern, they immediately reach out to us.
Engineer at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
The marketplace community and forums are what we browse and look after, and we have found solutions whenever we tried to find anything.
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText Functional Testing offers scalability, supports diverse ecosystems, and enhances integration, though resource consumption is a noted limitation.
Sentiment score
7.4
Selenium HQ is scalable and efficient for large scenarios, though hardware and configuration can impact performance.
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
Experiences with OpenText Testing vary; some face stability issues, but recent improvements enhance reliability compared to competitors.
Sentiment score
7.0
Selenium HQ is stable across platforms, with minor issues in Internet Explorer; most find Chrome and Firefox satisfactory.
We regularly update the product, and overall, it is stable.
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
Selenium HQ is a scalable solution; it has been in production for the last two years, but I have been working on it for the last six years, so it is definitely scalable.
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText Functional Testing requires enhanced integration, stability, performance, and accessibility for broader technology, mobile support, and modernized interfaces.
Selenium HQ requires better browser support, enhanced reporting, frequent updates, mobile testing, improved documentation, and user-friendly features.
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary.
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
An automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
I don't know if we have that capability to provide different data sources such as SQL Server, CSV, or maybe some other databases, so that kind of capability would be great.
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise users find OpenText Functional Testing costly, preferring open-source alternatives, with high setup and licensing fees.
Selenium HQ is a cost-effective, open-source tool, though additional expenses may arise for maintenance, implementation, and expertise.
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText Functional Testing offers flexibility, integration, and developer-friendly features, enhancing productivity and efficiency with strong stability and automation.
Selenium HQ provides cost-free, adaptable, cross-platform testing with customization, CI tool compatibility, and a supportive community.
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio.
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
Selenium HQ supports multiple browsers via grid hosting and offers dynamic configuration setup for testing across Chrome, Edge, and Internet Explorer.
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline.
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (10th)
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.1%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Selenium HQ is 3.2%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Selenium HQ3.2%
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.1%
Other93.7%
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.
Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
879,711 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Performing Arts
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise29
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise51
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?
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.
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...
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
SeleniumHQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Selenium HQ and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
879,711 professionals have used our research since 2012.