CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText UFT One comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #28, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.1. SmartBear holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 9.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

589 Views
449 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

Read 96 OpenText UFT One reviews

7,140 Views
4,477 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

OpenText UFT One

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT One and CrossBrowserTesting are competing products in the field of software testing tools. CrossBrowserTesting tends to be favored for its comprehensive features, despite the advantages UFT One holds in areas like pricing and support.

Features: OpenText UFT One is adept in automation capabilities that support various technologies and integrate efficiently with other OpenText products. Its specialties include robust GUI testing, extensive API testing, and compatibility with a wide range of platforms. CrossBrowserTesting excels in cross-browser testing abilities, offering extensive support for different operating systems and devices. It features live testing on real devices, supports automated script execution, and integrates with popular tools like Selenium.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One could improve in areas such as expanding its mobile testing capabilities, reducing deployment complexity, and enhancing cross-platform integration for non-Windows environments. CrossBrowserTesting can work on improving its pricing model to offer more affordable solutions, enhancing the speed and performance of their virtual testing environments, and expanding support for automation frameworks beyond Selenium.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One offers a more traditional deployment model, providing comprehensive service and strong integration support. CrossBrowserTesting, on the other hand, provides cloud-based solutions focusing on versatile accessibility and straightforward setup. CrossBrowserTesting has an edge in simplicity and flexibility in deployment, but UFT One ensures a structured deployment with comprehensive service support.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One is competitively priced with predictable costs, offering good ROI through its reliable automation features and integration capabilities. CrossBrowserTesting, perceived to be more expensive, delivers value through unique testing environments and scalability. It presents a higher initial investment but justifies it through extensive testing options, yielding a favorable ROI for diverse testing scenarios.

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

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One

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 One

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)

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 One is 9.9%, up from 9.7% 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

Don Ingerson

QA Automation Engineer at Global Fortune 500 Company

With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results

With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.

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

"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."

"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."

"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."

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

"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."

"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."

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

"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

"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."

"It is a stable solution."

"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."

"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."

"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."

More OpenText UFT One pros

Cons

"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."

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

"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."

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

"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 five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."

"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."

"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."

"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."

"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."

"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."

"The solution is expensive."

"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."

More OpenText UFT One 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."

"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."

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."

"The tool's price is high."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"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.""

"The price is reasonable."

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."

More OpenText UFT One 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

18%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?

My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 69% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 14% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 12% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 8% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

April 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

April 2025

Download OpenText UFT One product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

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

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

OpenText

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

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One

April 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.