No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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
19
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
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.3%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.7%, up from 8.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.7%
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
Other90.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CN
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.…
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. 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. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

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 choose from many devices is the best feature."
"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 can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"It helps to speed up the process to test the product in different devices and browsers, making it easy to troubleshoot some issues."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"Our site's conversion from a static to an adaptive flexible layout was a major goal for our web site, and CrossBrowserTesting was an invaluable tool for trying out that new code."
"We no longer need to have a full QA team, testing is more quickly and reliably reproduced, and scheduled daily tests assist in catching any bugs which fall through the cracks and make it to the production environment."
"Our current project features more than a 1000 manual test cases, which took several days and resources to execute, and now the suite executes in six hours and less than two when run on multiple machines."
"The fact that it works with a vast number of technologies works for us because our internal customers use the tool for testing a lot of different applications."
"It has definitely cut down on a lot of time by using this application, as running our ten environments manually would have taken most of the day rather than doing them simultaneously, which saves me hours."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"I like the direction the solution is heading and am really happy with how they keep adding new features."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"UFT One has good coverage of different environments and any Windows application or web application."
 

Cons

"Automated testing could be improved."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"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."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"When I ran the script for two or three times sequentially, the tool hung and wouldn’t respond."
"In my opinion, the improvement of the object recognition of new technologies and the capacity to catch more performance info should be desirable."
"It needs better compatibility with Chrome and Safari, which would lead to this being a better product."
"Sometimes you need a little bit more, but then HP help us to find it as they're knowledgeable troubleshooters."
"Having an Object Repository that is not stored but built through the run is the most difficult and time consuming task."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"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."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"It's an expensive solution."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The tool's price is high."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"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 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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

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...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.