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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Oracle Application Testing Suite comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

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
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)
Oracle Application Testing ...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
25th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (15th), Load Testing Tools (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.5%, down from 9.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle Application Testing Suite is 1.4%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.5%
Oracle Application Testing Suite1.4%
Other90.1%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Badari Mallireddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development
I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…
Rishabh-Sharma - PeerSpot reviewer
Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy
Oracle Application Testing Suite can improve by covering more browsers as compared to other solutions because they're considering the Edge browser as well, but the solution is working on different Windows operating platforms. For example, in our current Windows 2012 R2 server, if I want to automate the Edge browser, I need to upgrade that particular Windows to Windows 10.1 or some other Windows platform, because it's not supported in Windows 2012 feature. That is an issue. If cross-browsers can be incorporated, then support should be provided. There should be a single operating system where everything can be incorporated. I have faced issues with some indexing items. For example, the solution is able to derive some properties from the screen, such as button locations or text locations, but there are some elements, for example, unnamed buttons or text, where there is no name or ID or any other identifying information. Indexing doesn't always work, and we have to go to those elements manually and inspect them to determine their class, and then input that information into the system.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is a stable solution."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite's most valuable feature is it works very smoothly with all Oracle Java-based applications."
"We do not need a separate test management tool because we have there is a management tool. That is a very good feature. Secondly, it has an inbuilt performance testing tool, which is on flash. It has very good record and playback features as well. And apart from that, there is a good inspection feature. Since it comes with all of the packages, it's very good."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"OpenScript has many features that make it useful, including the ability to record and playback."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"I like the functional testing. There's a product inside OATS called OLT, Oracle Load Testing. You can do the load testing without depending on any other tool"
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
 

Cons

"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"I would like to see better dashboards."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"Lacks patches for new OS systems and doesn't work on a Mac."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
"The complete package, including load testing and performance analysis, has a licensing fee."
"Customers need to negotiate properly to get the tool at a lower price."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"ORACLE is giving at a very competitive rates to all its customers, and its a simple licensing process."
"The price of the Oracle Application Testing Suite is not expensive. It is less expensive than other solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
869,883 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
5%
Government
19%
Computer Software Company
12%
Performing Arts
8%
Retailer
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise71
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the public repository when using Object Spy and adding objects, as it currently stor...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
OATS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Comic Relief UK, The Forestry Commission, TAFE SA, Silentnight Group, Victorian Department of Primary Industries
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,883 professionals have used our research since 2012.