We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and OpenText Business Processing Testing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."It is a scalable solution."
"The integration is very good."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"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."
"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 product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"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."
"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"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."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."
"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."
Earn 20 points
BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while OpenText Business Processing Testing is ranked 37th in Functional Testing Tools. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while OpenText Business Processing Testing is rated 7.8. 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 Business Processing Testing writes "Excellent usability, but the solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with their ALM tool". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, Tricentis Tosca and Bitbar, whereas OpenText Business Processing Testing is most compared with .
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.
