CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #26, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.7. SmartBear holds a 1.0% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 8.4% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

588 Views
517 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

7,964 Views
5,734 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and CrossBrowserTesting compete in software testing. CrossBrowserTesting holds an edge due to its extensive browser and platform compatibility.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers robust scripting, automation capabilities, and precise test execution. CrossBrowserTesting provides a wide range of supported browsers, real device testing, and on-demand live testing.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could improve in browser and platform compatibility, deployment complexity, and user interface simplicity. CrossBrowserTesting may enhance its scripting capabilities, offer more advanced automation options, and improve integration with third-party tools.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing involves significant integration but provides responsive support. CrossBrowserTesting benefits from a simpler cloud-based deployment and efficient customer service.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing incurs high upfront costs with potential high ROI for automation-intensive enterprises. CrossBrowserTesting offers affordable pricing with balanced ROI, especially for businesses needing broad browser compatibility testing.

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

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Functional Testing

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 872,922 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

CrossBrowserTesting

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

26th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (4th)

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.0%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.4%, down from 9.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	8.4%
CrossBrowserTesting	1.0%
Other	90.6%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

CharlesNetshivhera

Senior DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees

Knowledgeable support, scalable, and stable

We use CrossBrowserTesting for testing our web-based applications We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve. I have used CrossBrowserTesting within the past 12 months. CrossBrowserTesting is stable. I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable.…

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 was the perfect solution that saved us time and money to perform web viewing tests on real devices, which allowed our team to correct multiple failures in devices."

"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."

"The screen shot portal is essential for an easy way to run tests across hundreds of browsers and retrieve screenshots which then indicate success or failure."

"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."

"When I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."

"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."

"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."

"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."

"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."

"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."

"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."

"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."

"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"Sometimes the testing is slow."

"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."

"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."

"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."

"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."

"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."

"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."

"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."

"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."

"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."

"UFT still requires some coding."

"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."

"They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."

"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

"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."

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

"The tool's price is high."

More OpenText Functional Testing 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

872,922 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

11%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	9
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	71

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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?

Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the public repository when using Object Spy and adding objects, as it currently stor...

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 70% of the time

Eggplant Test vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 17% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 22% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 10% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

November 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

October 2025

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

Overview

CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.

Native debugging tools make manual testing easy to inspect and correct HTML, CSS, and JavaScript errors on any browser.
Take automated screenshots across multiple browsers at once, then compare side-by-side against historical test runs.

SmartBear

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Functional Testing

September 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Functional Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

872,922 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Functional Testing 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.