Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT One 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 #2 with an average rating of 8.1. BrowserStack holds a 10.4% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 9.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% 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 One
Read 96 OpenText UFT One reviews
  • 7,140 Views
  • 4,477 Comparison Views
87% willing to recommend
 

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.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One Report (Updated: April 2025).
Buyer's Guide
BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One
April 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 849,686 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
25
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
96
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)
 

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 One is 9.9%, up from 9.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale - PeerSpot reviewer
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
Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results
With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.
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."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"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 product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"Maintenance of the solution is easy."
"The integration is very good."
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
More BrowserStack pros
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"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."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One."
"It's simple to set up."
"The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool."
"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."
More OpenText UFT One pros
 

Cons

"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."
"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."
"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."
"The solution is slow."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
More BrowserStack cons
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"UFT still requires some coding."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"The solution is expensive."
"We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
More OpenText UFT One 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."
"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."
"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"The price is reasonable."
"It's an expensive solution."
More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice
report
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
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
 

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 Logo
LambdaTest vs BrowserStack
Compared 33% of the time
Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack Logo
Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack
Compared 23% of the time
Perfecto vs BrowserStack Logo
Perfecto vs BrowserStack
Compared 18% of the time
Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack
Compared 5% of the time
Selenium HQ vs BrowserStack Logo
Selenium HQ vs BrowserStack
Compared 2% of the time
More BrowserStack Competitors
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 31% of the time
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One Logo
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 12% of the time
UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One Logo
UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 9% of the time
Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 8% of the time
Qt Squish vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Qt Squish vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 2% of the time
More OpenText UFT One Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
BrowserStack
April 2025
BrowserStack reportDownload BrowserStack product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT One
April 2025
OpenText UFT One reportDownload 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
April 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: April 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
849,686 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.