BrowserStack vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

BrowserStack and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.8. BrowserStack holds a 10.2% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 2.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 78% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 26 BrowserStack reviews

5,177 Views
4,815 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 39 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews

1,897 Views
1,650 Comparison Views

78% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText Functional Testing...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

BrowserStack and OpenText Functional Testing for Developers are competing in the software testing market. BrowserStack seems to have the upper hand in accessibility and user support, while OpenText offers advanced testing features justifying its higher cost.

Features: BrowserStack offers comprehensive testing across multiple devices and browsers with robust cross-browser compatibility and an intuitive user interface. OpenText provides in-depth testing capabilities including automation and multi-tool integration, making it a powerful tool for complex testing scenarios. Both products bring distinct advantages based on specific testing needs.

Room for Improvement: BrowserStack could improve its automation features and integrations to compete better with more complex systems. Adding advanced testing capabilities would be highly beneficial. OpenText could enhance user-friendliness and simplify setup to make it more accessible to users who are not technically inclined. Reducing required technical support during deployment would also benefit its users.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BrowserStack's cloud-based deployment ensures easy setup and swift implementation. It provides excellent customer service, offering timely support. OpenText, though more complex, delivers substantial technical support aiding in troubleshooting and setup, reflecting its in-depth structure.

Pricing and ROI: BrowserStack has a cost-effective pricing model with substantial ROI through decreased testing time and improved efficiency. OpenText, while more expensive, provides high ROI for businesses with robust feature needs, offering long-term value through its advanced test automation capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Report (Updated: August 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

August 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,497 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

BrowserStack

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)

OpenText Functional Testing...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

12th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (11th)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.2%, down from 11.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.9%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
BrowserStack	10.2%
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers	2.9%
Other	86.9%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale

Sr Practice Lead - Business and Experience Transformation at Peristent Systems

Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users

I integrated BrowserStack into our company's web and application test workflows because it has plugins that work with browsers and applications, allowing for cross-browser testing. BrowserStack was really helpful for cross-browser testing in areas involving mobiles, web applications, or tablets. The tool can help with the testing across all applications. I have not experienced any time-saving feature from the use of the tool. My company uses the product for real-device testing since it has a bunch of devices in our library. My company has a repository where we do manual testing. BrowserStack improved the quality of our company's applications. Improvements I have seen with the testing part revolve around the fact that it is able to do testing at a fast pace. The quality of the product is better since it can go through all the parts of the applications, meaning it can provide high test coverage. The tool is also good in the area of automation. The test coverage is higher, and the time taken during the testing phase is less due to automation. I have not used the product's integration capabilities since my company doesn't have the option to look at other QA testing tools like Selenium, which can be used for the automation capabilities provided. The product should offer more support for cross-browser testing, device testing, and testing across multiple devices. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Read full review

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

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The main core concept behind this product is, it takes the overhead of maintaining all of your devices or particular computers. It continuously adds the latest devices that are coming into the market."

"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."

"Maintenance of the solution is easy."

"The most valuable feature is that it provides parallel and cross-browser testing. It enables us to run tests on multiple browsers or devices simultaneously."

"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."

"It just added some flexibility. There was nothing that improved our coding standards, etc. because all of our UIs were functional before we tried it."

"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."

"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."

More BrowserStack pros

"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."

"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."

"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."

"The solution is very scalable."

"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."

"The most valuable feature is stability."

"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

Cons

"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."

"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."

"BrowserStack is very expensive and they keep increasing their cost, which is absolutely ridiculous, especially when someone like LambdaTest is coming through for literal thousands of dollars less, with the same services."

"We are struggling to do local testing."

"Customer support could be better. We tried to implement and explore this product with the vendor or reseller's help, but we haven't had any good response about the product."

"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."

"Sometimes BrowserStack is really slow and devices are not loading. it is really annoying and that's why we bought several newer devices because sometimes it's affecting us a lot."

"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."

More BrowserStack cons

"The pricing could be improved."

"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."

"In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object."

"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."

"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."

"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."

"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."

"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."

"This solution costs less than competing products."

"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."

"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 cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

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

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

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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

867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

University

Financial Services Firm

20%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

10%

Performing Arts

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	12
Large Enterprise	29

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?

The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BrowserStack?

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with BrowserStack?

In terms of improvements, they can make it snappier. Everything kind of works. They have locked down the phones, which is problematic because there are some test cases that require access to things...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 33% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 22% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 17% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 5% of the time

CrossBrowserTesting vs BrowserStack

Compared 4% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 48% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 12% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 5% of the time

Wikidi Testomato vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 5% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

September 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

August 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Also Known As

No data available

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

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.

BrowserStack

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

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

August 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: August 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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.