BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
BrowserStack Logo
8,712 views|6,797 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
3,210 views|1,945 comparisons
77% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and OpenText UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer Report (Updated: March 2024).
768,857 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The setup was quite simple. The website easily explains how to set it up and if you want to integrate it with BMP tools there are online simple step tutorials.""I like that it offers full device capability.""The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable.""It is a scalable solution.""The most valuable features are the variety of tools available.""The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful.""Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable.""It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."

More BrowserStack Pros →

"The most valuable feature is stability.""The most valuable features are the object repository.""It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry.""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.""The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency.""One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library.""The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local.""Integrates well with other products."

More OpenText UFT Developer Pros →

Cons
"There is room for improvement in pricing.""It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience.""Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience.""We had some execution issues.""I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms.""There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required.""One of the biggest issues with BrowserStack is that if you don't have your network set up by the book, it's hard to get it to work with local desk machines.""The solution is slow."

More BrowserStack Cons →

"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding.""In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable.""The tool could be a little easier.""The pricing could be improved.""It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support.""The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement.""The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added.""The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

More OpenText UFT Developer Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "This solution costs less than competing products."
  • "The price is fine."
  • "There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."
  • "BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
  • "The price of BrowserStack is high."
  • "Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
  • "My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."
  • "As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
  • More BrowserStack Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
  • "The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
  • "The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
  • "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."
  • "It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
  • "The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
  • "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 price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
  • More OpenText UFT Developer Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    768,857 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.
    Top Answer:My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses.
    Top Answer:I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product. Accessibility testing is an area of concern where improvements are required.
    Top Answer: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.
    Top Answer:The pricing is competitive. It is affordable and average.
    Top Answer:Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars.
    Ranking
    5th
    Views
    8,712
    Comparisons
    6,797
    Reviews
    12
    Average Words per Review
    353
    Rating
    7.9
    16th
    Views
    3,210
    Comparisons
    1,945
    Reviews
    2
    Average Words per Review
    452
    Rating
    8.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
    Learn More
    Overview
    BrowserStack is a cloud-based cross-browser testing tool that enables developers to test their websites across various browserson different operating systems and mobile devices, without requiring users to install virtual machines, devices or emulators.
    With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.
    Sample Customers
    Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
    Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company55%
    Financial Services Firm18%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Marketing Services Firm9%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company16%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Retailer7%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Comms Service Provider12%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm22%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business30%
    Midsize Enterprise26%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise67%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business5%
    Midsize Enterprise24%
    Large Enterprise71%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise76%
    Buyer's Guide
    BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    768,857 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    BrowserStack is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, CrossBrowserTesting and Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive. See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer report.

    See our list of best Functional Testing 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.