Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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
6.7
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (3rd)
 

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 Functional Testing is 9.2%, down from 9.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CN
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.…
Badari Mallireddy - PeerSpot reviewer
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…

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."
"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."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"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."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
 

Cons

"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"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."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"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."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"The tool's price is high."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"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.""
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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 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.
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...
 

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: August 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.