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

512 Views
286 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Business Processin...

Read 7 OpenText Business Processing Testing reviews

135 Views
41 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: May 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 860,592 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 July 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.9%, down 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 features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."

"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."

"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."

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

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

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

"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."

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

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

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

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

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."

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

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

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

"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."

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

"Sometimes the testing is slow."

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

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"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."

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

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

"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

860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

22%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Government

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 81% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 19% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

No data available

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

June 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing

June 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

May 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: May 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

860,592 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.