BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT One 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 #2 with an average rating of 7.8. BrowserStack holds a 10.8% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 9.4% 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

5,592 Views
3,443 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

Read 96 OpenText UFT One reviews

6,480 Views
2,919 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText UFT One

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT One and BrowserStack both compete in the software testing tools category. OpenText UFT One has the upper hand due to its extensive automation frameworks and support for diverse environments, making it suitable for complex enterprise needs, while BrowserStack shines in cross-browser testing efficiency.

Features: OpenText UFT One supports testing across multiple technologies, including desktop and web-based applications, and is recognized for features like object recognition and business process testing. BrowserStack excels in cross-browser testing, providing tools for testing web applications' responsiveness on various devices, highlighted for its device variability.

Room for Improvement: Users of OpenText UFT One have pointed out limitations such as browser compatibility, UI enhancements, and .NET automation challenges. BrowserStack users face issues with connectivity, performance speed, and navigation within the interface, and suggest improvements in integration and usability for non-technical users.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One is best suited for on-premises deployment with private cloud options, though it involves complex integration. Its customer service experience varies based on support contracts. BrowserStack offers seamless deployment in hybrid and public cloud environments, praised for easy setup and reliable customer support.

Pricing and ROI: Both OpenText UFT One and BrowserStack are considered expensive, with OpenText UFT One providing significant ROI through automation efficiency, despite high upfront costs. BrowserStack offers competitive per-user pricing and is valued for cost-effective device testing across a wide range of devices.

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

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 857,162 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 UFT One

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 (7th), Test Automation Tools (4th)

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 UFT One is 9.4%, down from 9.6% 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

"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."

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

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

"The main core concept behind this product is, it takes the overhead of maintaining all of your devices or particular computers. It continuously adds the latest devices that are coming into the market."

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

"It is a scalable solution."

"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."

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

More BrowserStack pros

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."

"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."

"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."

"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."

"It offers a wide range of testing."

"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."

"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."

More OpenText UFT One pros

Cons

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

"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."

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

"The solution is slow."

"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."

"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."

"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."

More BrowserStack cons

"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."

"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."

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

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

"The solution is expensive."

"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."

"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."

"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."

More OpenText UFT One cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"The price is fine."

"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."

"This solution costs less than competing products."

"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."

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

"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"The price is reasonable."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"The tool's price is high."

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

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

More OpenText UFT One 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

857,162 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

Retailer

Manufacturing Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Computer Software Company

13%

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

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?

OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...

See all answers

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 35% 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

Bitbar vs BrowserStack

Compared 2% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 12% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 8% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 8% of the time

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 2% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

June 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

May 2025

Download OpenText UFT One 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

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

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 UFT One

May 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

857,162 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One 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.