CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
SmartBear Logo
1,326 views|987 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
3,210 views|1,945 comparisons
77% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and OpenText UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: April 2024).
768,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server.""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.""It has increased the speed of our regression testing.""Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users.""This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices.""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.""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.""CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."

More CrossBrowserTesting Pros →

"The most valuable features are the object repository.""This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us.""One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library.""The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local.""The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases.""The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software.""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 most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."

More OpenText UFT Developer Pros →

Cons
"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.""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.""This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices.""I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same.""There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting.""I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on.""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.""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."

More CrossBrowserTesting Cons →

"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable.""It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute.""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.""It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding.""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.""Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful.""UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive.""In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."

More OpenText UFT Developer Cons →

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."
  • "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."
  • "SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
  • More CrossBrowserTesting Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
  • "The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
  • "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 cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
  • "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."
  • More OpenText UFT Developer Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    768,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Top Answer: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.
    Top Answer:The pricing is competitive. It is affordable and average.
    Top Answer:Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars.
    Ranking
    27th
    Views
    1,326
    Comparisons
    987
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    16th
    Views
    3,210
    Comparisons
    1,945
    Reviews
    2
    Average Words per Review
    452
    Rating
    8.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
    Learn More
    Overview

    CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.

    • Native debugging tools make manual testing easy to inspect and correct HTML, CSS, and JavaScript errors on any browser.
    • Take automated screenshots across multiple browsers at once, then compare side-by-side against historical test runs.
    With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.
    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
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm21%
    Healthcare Company14%
    Computer Software Company14%
    University7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company18%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Government10%
    Healthcare Company7%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Comms Service Provider12%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm22%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business35%
    Midsize Enterprise22%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business23%
    Midsize Enterprise16%
    Large Enterprise61%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business5%
    Midsize Enterprise24%
    Large Enterprise71%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise76%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    768,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Sauce Labs, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive.

    See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.

    We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.