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

BrowserStack vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
6.3
BrowserStack boosts ROI by saving time, integrating CI/CD, accelerating testing, reducing bugs, and streamlining with Jira.
Sentiment score
6.8
OpenText Functional Testing boosts ROI by enhancing efficiency with AI, reducing manual efforts, and accelerating test execution time.
Pipeline executions that used to take eight hours have been reduced to one hour, enhancing continuous deployment and providing quicker feedback cycles.
Managing Technical Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
I think its biggest benefit is how it integrates with our CI/CD, not necessarily giving access to developers for test devices.
Test Software Development Engineer at uShip, Inc.
I have seen a return on investment with BrowserStack, specifically a 50% reduction in human capacity.
Chief Executive Officer & Founder at a tech vendor with 201-500 employees
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
Support Engineer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
QA Automation Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
Senior Manager at Deloitte
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.7
BrowserStack's customer service is praised for responsiveness, helpfulness, and effective onboarding support despite some preferences for more instant call options.
Sentiment score
6.1
OpenText Functional Testing's customer service is praised for responsiveness, but support experiences vary in wait times and issue resolution.
BrowserStack customer support is excellent, with knowledgeable staff assisting throughout onboarding, setup, and understanding our needs to provide tailored solutions.
Managing Technical Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
Support Engineer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
After creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody.
QA Automation Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
Senior Manager at Deloitte
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.9
BrowserStack is praised for scalability and flexibility, despite cost concerns and occasional issues, making it suitable for varied operations.
Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText Functional Testing is scalable with proper license management and infrastructure, excelling in test automation scalability and integration.
BrowserStack's scalability is enhanced by its auto-scaling capabilities on AWS.
Managing Technical Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
They reproduce the same scenario, and then we create the bug ticket for them to fix.
QA Automation Lead at Mashvisor
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.
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
Support Engineer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
BrowserStack is a reliable testing platform with a broad device range and strong user ratings, despite occasional technical issues.
Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText Functional Testing performs well on suitable hardware, but stability varies with new features and requires strategic implementation.
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.
Senior Software Engineer at EPAM Systems
Sometimes there is slowness in the network, especially when working with AWS-based hosting.
Vice President of Quality at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
QA Lead at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees
 

Room For Improvement

BrowserStack users face challenges with connectivity, pricing, and integration, requesting better support, features, and automation capabilities.
OpenText Functional Testing is criticized for high memory usage, slow performance, poor compatibility, and requires technical skills and costly investment.
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.
Test Software Development Engineer at uShip, Inc.
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.
Managing Technical Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
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.
Vice President of Quality at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
Support Engineer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
QA Automation Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
QA Lead at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise users find BrowserStack pricing cost-effective and competitive, especially with customizable options and annual plans.
Despite its high cost and complex pricing, OpenText Functional Testing is valued for support and features, offering flexible licenses.
pricing was that it was a bit on the higher side, around three hundred dollars per user per month.
Managing Technical Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
Support Engineer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
Senior Manager at Deloitte
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
QA Automation Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
 

Valuable Features

BrowserStack provides extensive device support, integration with tools, and features for comprehensive testing, enhancing productivity and reducing defects.
OpenText Functional Testing enhances automation efficiency with AI tools, platform compatibility, and support for diverse technologies.
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.
Test Software Development Engineer at uShip, Inc.
BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by helping us reduce the human capacity by 50%, with that reduction mostly being in manual testing efforts.
Chief Executive Officer & Founder at a tech vendor with 201-500 employees
I use the feature of testing on beta versions in my workflow all the time, checking how the application works on the pre-release build, and our QA people also verify and perform regression testing using the pre-release build on specific devices through BrowserStack.
Senior Software Engineer at EPAM Systems
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
QA Automation Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
Support Engineer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier.
QA Lead at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees
 

Categories and Ranking

BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
31
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
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 8.8%, down from 10.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.7%, down from 9.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.7%
BrowserStack8.8%
Other83.5%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

RM
Managing Technical Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Cross-platform testing has accelerated releases and now needs smarter AI-driven test creation
The best features that BrowserStack offers include the ability to run manual and automated tests on real devices. We can create bugs, integrate it with other platforms like Jira or Azure, and use self-healing scripts with Selenium. We also have the test runs for different versions or with different frameworks, not just Selenium but with Playwright as well. Additionally, there are real-time dashboards and notifications sent when tests fail or when we need screenshots or recordings of test executions, and we can easily integrate this into our pipelines. BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by providing an out-of-the-box solution for whole test executions across different projects for our automobile customers. We have worked on around twenty to thirty projects, and the need for a stable, customizable single test execution platform that supports different platforms has been met. It has helped manage the entire quality assurance of the product efficiently. The measurable improvements due to BrowserStack include a significant efficiency gain, allowing the whole team to collaborate on testing and communicate faster. Also, the easier integration with project management tools has been beneficial. The documentation of findings has improved, which helps us share insights with different project stakeholders.
Badari Mallireddy - PeerSpot reviewer
QA Automation Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
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…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
5%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise13
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise71
 

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 experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was good.
What needs improvement with BrowserStack?
I feel there is not much to improve about BrowserStack.
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...
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.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.