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

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web comparison

 

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
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
18th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.4%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is 1.9%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web1.9%
CrossBrowserTesting1.4%
Other96.7%
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.…
reviewer2356440 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Experienced ease in automation with strong support while seeking improvements in low-code options
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers flexibility of deployment, from on-premises to UFT One which is on the cloud. They provide capability for immediate deployment, and assets can be migrated easily. They include enablers specifically for quick migration of test assets. While I have not personally been involved in these migrations, I have observed some clients using it directly while others make a complete shift from OpenText to Tricentis platforms. There have not been many clients moving from OpenText platforms from on-premises to cloud because most shifts have been toward different product categories such as Tricentis altogether.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Due to serious testing needs across platforms and devices, we found CrossBrowserTesting a useful tool as it has the capability for functional testing, UI testing, automated testing just on few clicks."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"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."
"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."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"Overall, this solution has proved useful to our organization, and with future improvements and the hopeful addition of devices, it will continue to be a tool we use daily."
"Overall, the product does what we need and does it well."
"The solution provides a controlled device farm with the right devices (selected based on analytics), that are readily available (can be reserved), have the right app and can be used for manual or automated tests."
"The ease of use and being able to enroll more people into developing test scripts using their AI function, which they call AI but is OCR recognition, is significant."
"The ideas and possibilities that this tool has are incredibly useful."
"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
"We escalate tickets to HPE, and we don't have problems."
 

Cons

"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"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."
"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."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up, as I still sometimes experience lag, which no one loves."
"With versions prior to 2.0 I found that configuration was trickier than it should be, particularly with aspects such as NV."
"I think the interface is not very good and I have used other solutions that are easier to learn."
"Deployment was an issue. Each time we set it up and deployed, it failed and we had to relaunch it again."
"Digital Lab is a pretty solid product with areas that could be continuously improved on."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
"However, it is still a young product that is improving leaps and bounds each release."
"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
 

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."
"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."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
"The product could be more affordable."
"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Transportation Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Non Profit
8%
 

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 Business4
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
Digital Lab is a pretty solid product with areas that could be continuously improved on.
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
I deal with OpenText Analysis Database and Core Performance Engineering, which are categories of software rather than individual pieces. We focus on the ADM area, which includes ALM, UFT One, UFT D...
What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
I do have experience with OpenText products and OpenText ALM. I have been using ALM Quality Center, which has had a few names for it over time, but it is the old Quality Center that was then rename...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.