CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Business Processing Testing comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #28, while OpenText is ranked #40. SmartBear holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 0.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

562 Views
417 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Business Processin...

Read 7 OpenText Business Processing Testing reviews

123 Views
46 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

OpenText Business Processin...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText Business Processing Testing and CrossBrowserTesting compete in software testing. CrossBrowserTesting has an edge with its versatile features and perceived value despite higher costs.

Features: OpenText offers automated testing, integration with business tools, and a modular framework for test development separate from automation. CrossBrowserTesting provides cross-browser compatibility, real-device testing, and session recording or replay capabilities.

Room for Improvement: OpenText could improve faster setup, broader cross-platform support, and offer more intuitive user interfaces. CrossBrowserTesting can enhance handling of outdated browsers, improve detailed reporting features, and streamline tools to manage testing scenarios for large teams.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: CrossBrowserTesting's cloud-based deployment supports scalability and ease of use, backed by responsive customer support. OpenText, while offering solid customer service, might be more complex to deploy due to its focus on enterprise levels.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText is considered budget-friendly with good ROI for process automation. CrossBrowserTesting, with possible higher initial costs, offers great ROI through shortened test cycles and comprehensive testing functionality.

To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 851,371 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

28th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Business Processin...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

40th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.8%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Business Processing Testing is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Michael Hutchison

Web Specialist at Mayo Clinic

Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems

The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default. Every time, I have to select the full screen, then restart its captures, which seems a waste of time and energy. This is, admittedly, a minor complaint.

Read full review

it_user309363

Regional Infrastructure Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

We use UFT for the scalability and cross-technology diversity, UFT API for the web-service and database related testing, and HP BPT for the modular testing.

We can now take test automation through the entire business process -- testing web service availability before automated test packs start, sending and retrieving data via web-services and control of all web service testing in a single tool, along with the GUI testing of business processes across a multitude of platforms from java web through to AS400 green screen terminal apps. BPT allows you to manage all the test resources and artifacts inside of Quality Center, including all data and test flows, and to have a single point for reporting. To give you an example, we built a series of tests that would firstly fire off web-service calls to ensure the required services were running. We would then do data creation using a series of Excel VB functions (called by UFT through BPT), and then launch into GUI testing of complex webmethods Java web portals to take a business process through a series of screens, capture required data and test screen functionality, write all runtime data back to QC datasets, then call the data later in the BPT test to validate it across database checks using HP UFT API, build and execute SQL queries, and finally validate information for accounting purposes of data sitting on AS400 or payment databases.

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

"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."

"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."

"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."

"At the moment, all our deploys depend on results of automation. If the tests are failing, then we know that something is wrong at the early stages of development."

"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."

"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."

"CBT has made it easier to troubleshoot issues across devices when we do not have actual access to those specific devices. I even opt for CBT sometimes when we do have access to the device just because it is easier."

"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."

"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."

Cons

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."

"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."

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

"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."

"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."

"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."

"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

"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."

"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

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

"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."

Information not available

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

851,371 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

26%

Financial Services Firm

19%

Government

10%

Real Estate/Law Firm

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 71% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 13% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

No data available

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

May 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing

April 2025

OpenText Business Processing Testing report

Download OpenText Business Processing Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus Business Process Testing, Business Process Testing, HPE Business Process Testing

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 Business Processing Testing (BPT) test framework software will help you move from one-off manual testing and ad hoc functional automated testing to an architected approach with a library of reusable test components. BPT accelerates the move to component-based testing with an integrated test framework approach to creating a repository of reusable test modules that allow for changes to be made once, then propagated across your distributed agile teams to all affected tests.

OpenText

Sample Customers

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

Migros Bank AG

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing

April 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

851,371 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing 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.