CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #28, while OpenText is ranked #13 with an average rating of 7.8. SmartBear holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 2.6% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 77% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

589 Views
449 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Developer

Read 38 OpenText UFT Developer reviews

1,882 Views
1,294 Comparison Views

77% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

OpenText UFT Developer

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT Developer and CrossBrowserTesting are competing products in the software testing arena. OpenText UFT Developer has the upper hand in automation strength, while CrossBrowserTesting excels in cross-browser compatibility.

Features: OpenText UFT Developer offers seamless integration with development tools, advanced automation technology, and supports a synchronized test scripting environment. CrossBrowserTesting provides cross-platform browser and device testing, access to real-world device environments, and compatibility with multiple browsers.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT Developer could enhance user interface clarity, reduce setup complexity, and improve test execution speed. CrossBrowserTesting might benefit from optimizing load times for real devices, improving the screenshot tool's accuracy, and expanding browser version support.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT Developer facilitates deployment with strong developer support for test script automation within integrated environments. CrossBrowserTesting offers a straightforward cloud-based deployment process, reducing the need for complex infrastructures and providing immediate cross-platform service.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT Developer presents a higher initial setup cost, focusing on long-term return through automation efficiency. CrossBrowserTesting offers flexible pricing with lower upfront costs, providing immediate benefits for projects needing extensive browser compatibility testing.

To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT Developer Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT Developer

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 peers since 2012

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

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText UFT Developer

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

13th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (13th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.8%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT Developer is 2.6%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Michael Hutchison

Web Specialist at Mayo Clinic

Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems

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. Every time, I have to select the full screen, then restart its captures, which seems a waste of time and energy. This is, admittedly, a minor complaint.

Read full review

Eitan Gold

SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities

OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) 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 ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."

"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."

"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."

"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."

"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."

"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."

"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."

"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."

"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."

"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."

"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."

"OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio."

"In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints."

"The solution is very scalable."

"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."

More OpenText UFT Developer pros

Cons

"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."

"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."

"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."

"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."

"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."

"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."

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."

"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."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"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 solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."

"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."

"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."

"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."

"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."

More OpenText UFT Developer cons

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."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"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."

"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."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

More OpenText UFT Developer pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

27%

Financial Services Firm

20%

Government

Real Estate/Law Firm

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

It's a high-priced solution compared to Selenium. Selenium is free, though there is a paid version now too. Selenium has improved a lot, and it's still okay to use. It's a functional testing tool, ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites. It is also suggested that the design and some functionality could be better.

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 70% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 14% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 59% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 20% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText UFT Developer Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

April 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer

April 2025

Download OpenText UFT Developer product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

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.

SmartBear

With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.

OpenText

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

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT Developer

April 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT Developer

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT Developer and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT Developer report.

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.