BrowserStack vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

BrowserStack and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.8. BrowserStack holds a 10.2% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 8.8% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 26 BrowserStack reviews

5,177 Views
4,815 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 97 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,360 Views
6,103 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and BrowserStack are prominent contenders in the software testing tools category. OpenText Functional Testing appears to have an edge with its in-depth support for various platforms, while BrowserStack provides vast device access for cross-browser testing without physical devices.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing supports a wide array of technologies like Oracle, SAP, and advanced object recognition. It has functionalities that extend beyond typical web testing. BrowserStack enables cross-platform testing with real devices and browsers, offering the ability to simulate network conditions and carry out geolocation testing.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing needs better performance, reduced memory usage, and improved IDE and cross-browser compatibility. BrowserStack could enhance load times, offer more competitive pricing, and improve integration with testing frameworks like Robot. Users also note issues with connectivity and device availability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is primarily on-premises but can be deployed over private clouds; support is sometimes slow in resolving complex issues. BrowserStack excels in cloud deployment, facilitating cross-platform testing but experiences similar support delays.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is costly yet delivers excellent ROI through extensive automation and coverage. Its pricing model is complex. BrowserStack, though expensive, is often seen as more cost-effective compared to competitors due to its lower user pricing, yet both require significant investment for substantial productivity gains.

To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,826 peers since 2012

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

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

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.2%, down from 11.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.8%, down from 9.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	8.8%
BrowserStack	10.2%
Other	81.0%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale

Sr Practice Lead - Business and Experience Transformation at Peristent Systems

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.

Read full review

Badari Mallireddy

QA Automation Architect at Emerson

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…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The device farm is one of the positive impacts we have seen from using BrowserStack."

"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."

"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."

"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."

"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."

"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."

"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."

More BrowserStack pros

"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."

"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."

"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."

"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."

"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."

"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."

"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."

"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."

"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."

"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."

"There is room for improvement in pricing."

"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."

"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."

"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."

"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."

More BrowserStack cons

"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."

"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."

"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."

"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."

"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."

"The solution does not have proper scripting."

"They should include AI-based testing features."

"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"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 is fine."

"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."

"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."

"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."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

867,826 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

University

Manufacturing Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

12%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	12
Large Enterprise	71

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?

The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the public repository when using Object Spy and adding objects, as it currently stor...

See all answers

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 33% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 22% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 17% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 5% of the time

Bitbar vs BrowserStack

Compared 2% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 26% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 12% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 2% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

September 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

September 2025

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

Overview

BrowserStack is a cloud-based cross-browser testing tool that enables developers to test their websites across various browserson different operating systems and mobile devices, without requiring users to install virtual machines, devices or emulators.

BrowserStack

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?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

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.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing

September 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,826 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.