BrowserStack vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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 #12 with an average rating of 7.8. BrowserStack holds a 10.0% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 2.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 78% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 26 BrowserStack reviews

4,859 Views
4,470 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 39 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews

1,874 Views
1,612 Comparison Views

78% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText Functional Testing...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

BrowserStack and OpenText Functional Testing are competing products in software testing tools. BrowserStack has an advantage in cross-browser and device compatibility testing due to its extensive real device support, while OpenText Functional Testing leads in automation capabilities, making it ideal for enterprise-level applications.

Features: BrowserStack provides real-time cross-browser testing, native device testing, and seamless CI/CD integration. OpenText Functional Testing offers advanced automation features, comprehensive test reporting, and integration with OpenText's suite, facilitating thorough application lifecycle management.

Room for Improvement: BrowserStack could enhance its automated testing capabilities and provide more robust testing documentation. Additionally, improving real-time technical support and offering more competitive pricing options would be beneficial. OpenText Functional Testing would benefit from simplified deployment processes, enhanced UI for easier navigation, and better integration flexibility with non OpenText tools.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BrowserStack's cloud-based deployment and easy setup enable teams to adopt and scale testing swiftly, complemented by responsive support and extensive documentation. OpenText Functional Testing involves a more complex on-premise or hybrid setup but provides dedicated support options that fit enterprise needs.

Pricing and ROI: BrowserStack employs a subscription-based model with flexible pricing tiers, ensuring rapid ROI for companies focusing on manual and visual testing. OpenText Functional Testing generally demands higher initial investments, potentially leading to longer ROI periods but offers value for enterprises prioritizing detailed automation and integration capabilities.

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

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 869,513 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

12th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (11th)

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.0%, down from 11.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.9%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
BrowserStack	10.0%
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers	2.9%
Other	87.1%

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 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, 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

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

"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."

"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."

"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."

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

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

"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."

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

More BrowserStack pros

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

"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."

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

"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."

"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."

"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."

"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

Cons

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

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

"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."

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

"I would like to see clearer visibility."

"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."

"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."

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

More BrowserStack cons

"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."

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

"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."

"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."

"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."

"The tool could be a little easier."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"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."

"The price is fine."

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

"This solution costs less than competing products."

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

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

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

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

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

"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 pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

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

869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

University

Financial Services Firm

21%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Computer Software Company

Performing Arts

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	2
Midsize Enterprise	12
Large Enterprise	29

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?

As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...

See all answers

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 32% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 24% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 5% of the time

CrossBrowserTesting vs BrowserStack

Compared 4% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 47% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 12% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 6% of the time

Wikidi Testomato vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 5% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

October 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

September 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

September 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: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

869,513 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.