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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Panaya Test Dynamix comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 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
7.2
OpenText Functional Testing automates tasks, reducing testing time and costs, yielding significant long-term ROI and system compatibility.
Sentiment score
5.0
Panaya Test Dynamix improved test efficiency, reduced manual efforts, and provided measurable benefits in productivity, cost-effectiveness, and resource allocation.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.1
OpenText Functional Testing support is mixed, with responsive service but potential delays and escalations for technical issues.
Sentiment score
5.7
Users praise Panaya Test Dynamix customer service for prompt, knowledgeable, and efficient support with effective communication and problem-solving skills.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText Functional Testing scales well with planning, though browser support and licensing issues require attention for seamless integration.
Sentiment score
6.7
Panaya Test Dynamix is praised for scalability, efficient test case management, integration, reliability, and performance under large workloads.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText Functional Testing is generally reliable, but occasional stability issues arise, influenced by machine specs and implementation methods.
Sentiment score
7.8
Panaya Test Dynamix stands out for its stability, reliability, and efficient performance, excelling under heavy workflows and various conditions.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText Functional Testing needs enhancements in object identification, performance, cost, scripting support, mobile features, and open-source tool integration.
Panaya Test Dynamix requires better customization, clearer error messages, improved performance, enhanced integration, easier navigation, and more comprehensive training resources.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText Functional Testing is costly but cost-effective due to robust capabilities and potential reductions in manual testing efforts.
Panaya Test Dynamix offers competitive, scalable, and cost-effective pricing with customizable packages to meet diverse organizational testing needs.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText Functional Testing provides extensive platform compatibility, strong object recognition, and robust automation frameworks enhancing diverse testing environments.
Users praise Panaya Test Dynamix for its automation, detailed reporting, ease of use, seamless integration, and efficient defect management.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
The best features of OpenText Functional Testing include descriptive programming, the ability to add objects in the repository, and its ease of use for UI compared to other tools.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)
Panaya Test Dynamix
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
26th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
13th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Defect Tracking (7th), Test Management Tools (19th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 9.4%, down from 9.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Panaya Test Dynamix is 1.4%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
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…
Alain Vanhaeght - PeerSpot reviewer
More than reliable, with satisfied results for our needs, and excellent testing options
For the moment we are looking to automated testing, and there today apparently it is not working well with the application we want to test. So we are using an application on a terminal server and some quirks make it challenging to make automatic testing. It would be nice to be able to test offline. What I mean by that is today most of the time things are in the cloud, but sometimes when we are in factories we do not have network access and we should be able to download a test script into our PCs and do the test offline. Once that is complete we can re-upload it when we again have a network connection.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Computer Software Company
16%
Healthcare Company
8%
Retailer
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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?
OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Over 3000 leading enterprises worldwide including SONY, NICE, NEC, Shiseido, DHL, ABB and Grupo Bimbo
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Panaya Test Dynamix and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.