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

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 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
12th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.0%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.9%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers2.9%
CrossBrowserTesting1.0%
Other96.1%
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.…
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

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."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."
"I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective."
 

Cons

"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"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."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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 licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
21%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Performing Arts
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 Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise29
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?
There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.