"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"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."
"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."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."
"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."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give Micro Focus UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"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."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"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."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"The solution is slow."
"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."
"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."
"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
BrowserStack is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Micro Focus UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 17 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 7.8, while Micro Focus UFT One is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Test against a huge range of device and browser combinations but expect some connectivity issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus UFT One writes "Testers have been able to free up their time: instead of doing mundane, repetitive tasks, they shift them off to automation". BrowserStack is most compared with Perfecto, Sauce Labs, LambdaTest, CrossBrowserTesting and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence, whereas Micro Focus UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Micro Focus UFT Developer, Selenium HQ, SmartBear TestComplete and Katalon Studio. See our BrowserStack vs. Micro Focus UFT One 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.
