Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BrowserStack vs OpenText Business Processing Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

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
26
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
OpenText Business Processin...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
39th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

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 Business Processing Testing is 0.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
BrowserStack10.0%
OpenText Business Processing Testing0.3%
Other89.7%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
RR
Helpful solution that enables us to execute our use cases
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 a lot easier to understand 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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"Maintenance of the solution is easy."
"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."
"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."
"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
 

Cons

"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"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."
"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"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."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise5
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?
The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.
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.
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Business Process Testing, Business Process Testing, HPE Business Process Testing
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Migros Bank AG
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.