BrowserStack vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

BrowserStack and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.3, while OpenText is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.8. BrowserStack holds a 10.8% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 2.6% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 77% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 26 BrowserStack reviews

5,592 Views
3,443 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 38 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews

1,679 Views
1,028 Comparison Views

77% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText Functional Testing...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

BrowserStack and OpenText Functional Testing for Developers are competing in the software testing market. BrowserStack seems to have the upper hand in accessibility and user support, while OpenText offers advanced testing features justifying its higher cost.

Features: BrowserStack offers comprehensive testing across multiple devices and browsers with robust cross-browser compatibility and an intuitive user interface. OpenText provides in-depth testing capabilities including automation and multi-tool integration, making it a powerful tool for complex testing scenarios. Both products bring distinct advantages based on specific testing needs.

Room for Improvement: BrowserStack could improve its automation features and integrations to compete better with more complex systems. Adding advanced testing capabilities would be highly beneficial. OpenText could enhance user-friendliness and simplify setup to make it more accessible to users who are not technically inclined. Reducing required technical support during deployment would also benefit its users.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BrowserStack's cloud-based deployment ensures easy setup and swift implementation. It provides excellent customer service, offering timely support. OpenText, though more complex, delivers substantial technical support aiding in troubleshooting and setup, reflecting its in-depth structure.

Pricing and ROI: BrowserStack has a cost-effective pricing model with substantial ROI through decreased testing time and improved efficiency. OpenText, while more expensive, provides high ROI for businesses with robust feature needs, offering long-term value through its advanced test automation capabilities.

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

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 859,129 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

5th

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

12th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (11th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.8%, up from 10.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.6%, down from 2.8% 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

Eitan Gold

SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities

OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.

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

"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."

"It is a scalable solution."

"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."

"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."

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

"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."

"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."

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

More BrowserStack pros

"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."

"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."

"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."

"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"Integrates well with other products."

"The most valuable feature is stability."

"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."

"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

Cons

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

"There is room for improvement in pricing."

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

"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."

"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."

"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."

"We had some execution issues."

"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."

More BrowserStack cons

"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."

"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

"In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object."

"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."

"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."

"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution costs less than competing products."

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

"The price is fine."

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

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"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."

"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."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

University

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

11%

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

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object.

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 17% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 5% of the time

CrossBrowserTesting vs BrowserStack

Compared 3% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 54% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 15% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 3% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

June 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

June 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

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 for Developers offers robust automation capabilities with support for complex algorithms, multi-platform testing, and developer-friendly integration using C# and Java, facilitating seamless testing transitions and efficient automation workflows.

This testing tool is highly valued for its integration with ALM and Jenkins, along with its developer-focused environment adaptable to Eclipse and Visual Studio. With AI-based object recognition, an object repository, and test framework integration, it bolsters DevOps practices while reducing IT workloads. Supporting UFT to LeanFT transition, it caters to SAP, Java, .NET environments, and more. Enhanced with stable automation, extensive protocol support, and both on-premises and cloud deployments, it targets performance, regression, and functional testing, while recording and screengrabs enhance automation capabilities. Future improvements could include expanded browser compatibility, enhanced JavaScript and mobile support, and better object recognition.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers?

Complex Algorithm Handling: Manages complex scenarios with ease, including fuzzy logic.
Developer-friendly: Enables coding in C# and Java, integrating seamlessly with popular IDEs.
AI-based Object Recognition: Enhances test automation through advanced object identification.
Extensive Protocol Support: Supports a wide range of protocols for diverse testing requirements.
Seamless Integration: Connects effortlessly with ALM and Jenkins, promoting continuous development.

What benefits can users expect when evaluating OpenText Functional Testing?

Efficient Test Automation: Streamlines test processes, optimizing resource allocation and reducing effort.
Multi-platform Flexibility: Facilitates cross-platform testing, accommodating desktop, web, and banking applications.
Reduced IT Workload: Simplifies automation tasks, decreasing the strain on IT resources.
Enhanced DevOps Support: Integrates well with DevOps practices for continuous testing advancements.

Organizations implement OpenText Functional Testing for complex test automation on desktop, web, and banking applications, supporting performance, regression, and functionality testing across environments like SAP, Java, and .NET. UFT aids in GUI, infrastructure, and ERP application automation, with deployment options including on-premises and cloud implementations. Enhanced screengrabs and recording features aid in practical test case development, while addressing emerging technology needs is a focus.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

May 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report.

See our list of best Functional 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.