

OpenText Functional Testing and BrowserStack are competing in the automated testing tools market. BrowserStack seems to hold an advantage with its strong focus on cross-browser and device testing capabilities, which are highly valued in today’s web-driven world.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing provides broad support for technologies like Oracle, SAP, and integrates with Excel. It offers comprehensive testing frameworks and an object recognition system. BrowserStack provides extensive cross-browser and device testing on real devices, facilitating a smooth testing environment without requiring physical hardware.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could improve its browser compatibility and stabilize its cross-browser testing. Enhancements in object recognition and modern programming language support are also required. BrowserStack could focus on improving connectivity stability and mitigating occasional slowness, while addressing pricing criticisms relative to competitors.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing primarily operates on-premises, demanding more infrastructure management. BrowserStack is cloud-based, offering greater deployment flexibility. BrowserStack's customer service is generally fast, although there's some inconsistency, whereas OpenText struggles with response times and support quality.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing, though expensive, is justified by its features, yielding a good ROI for enterprises needing comprehensive testing. BrowserStack is also costly but considered more affordable than some competitors, benefiting from increased productivity and reduced device dependency despite high user costs.
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.
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.
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 | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Functional Testing | 7.7% |
| BrowserStack | 8.8% |
| Other | 83.5% |

| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 11 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 8 |
| Large Enterprise | 13 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 20 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 71 |
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.
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.