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 #39. SmartBear holds a 0.9% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 0.2% 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

529 Views
476 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Business Processin...

Read 7 OpenText Business Processing Testing reviews

177 Views
147 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: August 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing

August 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,384 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

39th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.9%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Business Processing Testing is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

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

Revanth Reddy

Consultant at Infrasoft Technologies

Helpful solution that enables us to execute our use cases

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 a lot easier to understand 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.

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

"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."

"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."

"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."

"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."

"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."

"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."

"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."

"Record and Replay is the most used functionality for us, as we can record the test cases and play them on multiple combinations of platforms."

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

"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."

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

"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."

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."

"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."

"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."

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

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"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."

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"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."

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

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 63% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 14% of the time

Bitbar vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 12% of the time

Eggplant Test vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 12% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

No data available

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

August 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing

August 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

August 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: August 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,384 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.