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 10.7% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 9.2% 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

5,517 Views
5,131 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 97 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,409 Views
6,139 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and BrowserStack are both key players in the realms of functional and cross-browser testing. OpenText holds the upper hand in enterprise-level integration and compatibility, while BrowserStack appeals to cost-conscious teams needing broad device compatibility.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers extensive browser support, test object management, and integration capabilities for GUI, API, and desktop applications. It provides the flexibility of Insight and LeanFT for advanced object recognition, covering a wide range of application types. BrowserStack excels with a broad suite of real device testing, geographic simulation capabilities, and comprehensive cross-browser testing, quickly unveiling compatibility issues across diverse configurations.

Room for Improvement: OpenText users express the need for enhanced speed, better memory usage, and improved stability on virtual machines, alongside better .NET support and an expanded browser compatibility. BrowserStack users suggest improvements in application speed, more diverse device offerings, and customer support responsiveness, with pricing being a point of contention against competitors offering similar features.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is typically deployed on-premises with optional cloud integration, which suits companies with stringent security or customization needs. Customer service receives good ratings, though support speed can depend on contract level. BrowserStack, being predominantly cloud-based, facilitates effortless cross-device deployment, excelling in flexibility and dynamic scaling scenarios. Customer service feedback is mixed, often dependent on individual interactions and specific technical requirements.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is a premium solution with ROI driven by its expansive compatibility and automation capabilities, ideal for large enterprises requiring comprehensive testing. The investment is offset by reductions in manual testing and increased testing precision over time. BrowserStack, although perceived as costly by some, offers a more accessible entry point for smaller teams seeking efficient cross-browser testing without the need for maintaining physical devices. ROI is mainly realized through productivity enhancements in testing across multiple platforms.

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

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 864,574 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 August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.7%, down from 11.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 9.2%, down from 9.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

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

"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."

"It is a scalable solution."

"I've worked on testing integrations with BrowserStack, particularly with a platform called IT. This involves testing the registration process, including receiving verification codes on devices and phones. BrowserStack has been excellent for testing these integrations, providing a seamless workflow development experience."

"Maintenance of the solution is easy."

"It just added some flexibility. There was nothing that improved our coding standards, etc. because all of our UIs were functional before we tried it."

"I like that it offers full device capability."

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

"The setup was quite simple. The website easily explains how to set it up and if you want to integrate it with BMP tools there are online simple step tutorials."

More BrowserStack pros

"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."

"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."

"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."

"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."

"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."

"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."

"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."

"The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

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

"I would like to see clearer visibility."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."

"There is room for improvement in pricing."

"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."

More BrowserStack cons

"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."

"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."

"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."

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

"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."

"Customer service is a big drawback. From my personal experience, after creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody."

"The initial setup is complex."

"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution costs less than competing products."

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

"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."

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

"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."

"The price is fine."

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

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

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

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

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

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"The price is reasonable."

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

864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

University

Manufacturing Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

12%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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 34% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 23% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 4% 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

Qt Squish vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 2% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

August 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

July 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

July 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: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

864,574 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.