BrowserStack vs OpenText Functional Testing 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 #2 with an average rating of 7.8. BrowserStack holds a 10.0% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 8.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 26 BrowserStack reviews

4,859 Views
4,470 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,018 Views
5,773 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and BrowserStack are prominent contenders in the software testing tools category. OpenText Functional Testing appears to have an edge with its in-depth support for various platforms, while BrowserStack provides vast device access for cross-browser testing without physical devices.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing supports a wide array of technologies like Oracle, SAP, and advanced object recognition. It has functionalities that extend beyond typical web testing. BrowserStack enables cross-platform testing with real devices and browsers, offering the ability to simulate network conditions and carry out geolocation testing.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing needs better performance, reduced memory usage, and improved IDE and cross-browser compatibility. BrowserStack could enhance load times, offer more competitive pricing, and improve integration with testing frameworks like Robot. Users also note issues with connectivity and device availability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is primarily on-premises but can be deployed over private clouds; support is sometimes slow in resolving complex issues. BrowserStack excels in cloud deployment, facilitating cross-platform testing but experiences similar support delays.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is costly yet delivers excellent ROI through extensive automation and coverage. Its pricing model is complex. BrowserStack, though expensive, is often seen as more cost-effective compared to competitors due to its lower user pricing, yet both require significant investment for substantial productivity gains.

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

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 872,778 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

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.0%, down from 11.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.5%, down from 9.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	8.5%
BrowserStack	10.0%
Other	81.5%

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

Badari Mallireddy

QA Automation Architect at Emerson

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…

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

"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."

"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."

"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."

"Maintenance of the solution is easy."

"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."

"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."

"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."

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

More BrowserStack pros

"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."

"Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One."

"OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier."

"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."

"OpenText Functional Testing has an impressive ability to connect to mobile devices and its ability to test so many different types of software, whether it be mainframe, APIs, mobile, web, or desktop."

"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."

"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."

"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."

"There is room for improvement in pricing."

"The solution is slow."

"We are struggling to do local testing."

"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."

"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."

More BrowserStack cons

"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."

"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."

"The solution is expensive."

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."

"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."

"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."

"They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed."

"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution costs less than competing products."

"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."

"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."

"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."

"The price is fine."

"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."

"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

"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 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."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"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."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

More OpenText Functional Testing 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

872,778 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

Comms Service Provider

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

11%

Government

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	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	71

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

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 31% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 24% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 15% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 5% of the time

Bitbar vs BrowserStack

Compared 2% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 23% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 11% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 2% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

October 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

October 2025

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

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

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 provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing

September 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

872,778 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.