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

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 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
27th
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
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.5%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 6.8%, down from 9.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing6.8%
CrossBrowserTesting1.5%
Other91.7%
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

"CrossBrowserTesting helps a lot with the responsive testing in different mobiles and browsers and has good tools for our testing like taking videos and screenshots."
"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."
"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"CrossBrowserTesting improved my organization because it eliminates the need for a physical device with a tester to cover our used browsers."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."
"Since I started, we invested in UFT and automation and we have significantly reduced our release cycle time."
"I like the direction the solution is heading and am really happy with how they keep adding new features."
"It's allowed us to perform functional testing (to verify a specific action or function of code) for each product update."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"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."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies."
"It's allowed business analysts to work with automation scripts without requiring them to have programming knowledge."
 

Cons

"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"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."
"Automated testing could be improved."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"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."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"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."
"[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."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"I’d like to see them improve the number of objects recognized without customization, similar to TestComplete by SmartBear."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"The solution works for the most part, but the IDE is horrible (although I hear version 12 has a revamped IDE and is much better) and as a result of VBScript being the language, there is no stack trace information available so debugging some errors is not an easy task."
"UFT still requires some coding."
"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"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."
"The tool's price is high."
"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."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The price is reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
Transportation Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
7%
Retailer
5%
 

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 Enterprise71
 

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: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.