BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

BrowserStack and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.3, while OpenText is ranked #13 with an average rating of 7.8. BrowserStack holds a 10.4% 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 25 BrowserStack reviews

5,813 Views
4,866 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Developer

Read 38 OpenText UFT Developer reviews

1,882 Views
1,294 Comparison Views

77% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText UFT Developer

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

BrowserStack and OpenText UFT Developer compete in the software testing category. BrowserStack has an advantage in ease of use and customer support, while OpenText UFT Developer stands out for its feature richness, ideal for advanced testing.

Features: BrowserStack provides live testing on real devices, integrates with CI/CD tools, and supports automated testing. OpenText UFT Developer offers advanced automation for web, mobile, and enterprise apps, includes AI-driven features, and enhances test accuracy.

Room for Improvement: BrowserStack could broaden its feature set and documentation to match skilled users' needs. Increasing supported device variety and enhancing real-time testing could be beneficial. OpenText UFT Developer could simplify its interface and reduce setup times for new users. Streamlining its AI features and reducing initial learning curves would help.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BrowserStack features an easy deployment model focused on quick setup and accessible support. OpenText UFT Developer, while requiring more initial setup, compensates with extensive documentation and strong technical support that supports post-deployment stages thoroughly.

Pricing and ROI: BrowserStack offers lower initial costs and a transparent pricing model, providing significant ROI through scalability. OpenText UFT Developer involves higher upfront expenses but offers substantial ROI for those utilizing its extensive feature set.

To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 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 UFT Developer

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

13th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (13th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.4%, down from 10.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT Developer is 2.6%, down from 2.9% 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

"Maintenance of the solution is easy."

"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."

"The integration is very good."

"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."

"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."

"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."

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

"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."

More BrowserStack pros

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

"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."

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

"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."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."

"In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints."

More OpenText UFT Developer pros

Cons

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

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

"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."

"We are struggling to do local testing."

"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."

"We had some execution issues."

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

"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."

More BrowserStack cons

"Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously."

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

"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."

"The tool could be a little easier."

"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."

"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."

"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."

"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."

More OpenText UFT Developer cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

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

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

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

"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."

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"This solution costs less than competing products."

"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."

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

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

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

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

"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."

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

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

More OpenText UFT Developer 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

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

Retailer

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

10%

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?

I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product. Accessibility testing is an area of concern where improvements are required.

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?

It's a high-priced solution compared to Selenium. Selenium is free, though there is a paid version now too. Selenium has improved a lot, and it's still okay to use. It's a functional testing tool, ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites. It is also suggested that the design and some functionality could be better.

See all answers

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 33% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 23% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 18% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 5% of the time

CrossBrowserTesting vs BrowserStack

Compared 4% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 59% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 20% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText UFT Developer Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

April 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer

April 2025

Download OpenText UFT Developer 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

With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.

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 UFT Developer

April 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer

Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer 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.