

OpenText Functional Testing and BrowserStack both operate in the software testing space. OpenText seems to have the upper hand in automation capability across multiple platforms due to its broad technology support, while BrowserStack is superior in cross-device testing with real devices.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing is compatible with numerous technologies and platforms, supporting GUI, API, and database testing. Its object recognition aids robust automation frameworks. BrowserStack excels in testing across real devices and browsers, offering geolocation and cross-browser capabilities that are essential for responsive testing.
Room for Improvement: OpenText faces challenges in memory usage, browser compatibility, and execution speed, with a demand for better integration with modern technologies. BrowserStack users highlight the need for improved connectivity, integration with other frameworks, and enhanced local testing features for mobile file uploads.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is typically deployed on-premises; users find technical support high quality but seek faster responses and simpler deployments. BrowserStack, often used in cloud environments, receives praise for swift customer service and easy deployment despite some connectivity issues.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText is noted for a high licensing cost but long-term ROI due to its feature set. BrowserStack, while also expensive, is often seen as cost-effective for large projects requiring economical cross-browser testing. ROI depends significantly on the scale of use and the needs addressed by the respective features.
Pipeline executions that used to take eight hours have been reduced to one hour, enhancing continuous deployment and providing quicker feedback cycles.
I think its biggest benefit is how it integrates with our CI/CD, not necessarily giving access to developers for test devices.
I have seen a return on investment with BrowserStack, specifically a 50% reduction in human capacity.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
BrowserStack customer support is excellent, with knowledgeable staff assisting throughout onboarding, setup, and understanding our needs to provide tailored solutions.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
After creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
BrowserStack's scalability is enhanced by its auto-scaling capabilities on AWS.
They reproduce the same scenario, and then we create the bug ticket for them to fix.
Running them in parallel allows you to consume multiple runtime licenses and just execute the tests that don't have conflicting priorities and get through a lot of volume much quicker.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
BrowserStack is quite stable for me because it offers many different devices, is always up to date, and has a nice user interface with good user experience.
Sometimes there is slowness in the network, especially when working with AWS-based hosting.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
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.
Going forward, one way BrowserStack could improve is by incorporating AI concepts to create tests automatically from provided URLs or user intentions, generating scripts without needing users to write automation scripts.
I think false positives are an area where BrowserStack can improve, as I have often seen things working fine on actual devices, but on BrowserStack devices, issues arise due to network slowness or AWS region connectivity problems that cause lag.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
pricing was that it was a bit on the higher side, around three hundred dollars per user per month.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
The device farm is one of the positive impacts we have seen from using BrowserStack. We get to run our automation against their full suite of devices, which alleviates the uplift of manual testing.
BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by helping us reduce the human capacity by 50%, with that reduction mostly being in manual testing efforts.
BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization primarily through time savings because it is very easy to use and replicates physical devices for testing, which is crucial since we usually do not have physical devices.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Functional Testing | 6.8% |
| BrowserStack | 4.7% |
| Other | 88.5% |

| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 10 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 8 |
| Large Enterprise | 14 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 20 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 71 |
BrowserStack offers a cloud-based testing solution that facilitates comprehensive cross-platform testing for web and mobile apps, allowing efficient testing across devices, browsers, and operating systems without the need for physical hardware.
It provides integration with project management tools and enables parallel and cross-browser testing, enhancing collaboration with an intuitive interface. Support for real devices offers better insight compared to simulators and helps in reducing manual efforts through automation capabilities. Companies benefit from BrowserStack's vast device range that ensures efficient testing and improved quality at a reduced cost.
What are BrowserStack's key features?In industries like software development and IT services, BrowserStack aids businesses in testing compatibility, performance, and responsiveness across platforms, addressing issues like UI challenges and ensuring legacy application support on older systems. Companies utilize it to refine app quality, using tools such as Selenium and APM for comprehensive test automation.
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?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.
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.