Top 10 OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web Alternatives

3.7 out of 5

18 reviews
83% willing to recommend

Top OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Tricentis Tosca, BrowserStack, and Perfecto. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web surpasses its competitors by offering advanced mobile and web testing capabilities, seamless integration with test automation tools, and efficient remote device access for robust quality assurance.

OpenText Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with OpenText, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.

Get the alternatives report

Tricentis Tosca

4.1 out of 5

Tricentis Tosca

4.1 out of 5

Tricentis Tosca offers intuitive interfaces and industry adoption, appealing to enterprises needing extensive automation capabilities. In comparison, OpenText Functional Testing Lab attracts tech buyers with its advanced analytics and comprehensive mobile support, providing a cost-effective choice for detailed mobile and web testing.

Download OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. Tricentis Tosca Report

Pricing

Tricentis Tosca has a higher setup cost, whereas OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers a more affordable initial setup, reflecting their differences in pricing structures.

View comparison

Pricing

Tricentis Tosca has a higher setup cost, whereas OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers a more affordable initial setup, reflecting their differences in pricing structures.

BrowserStack

4.0 out of 5

BrowserStack

4.0 out of 5

BrowserStack impresses with competitive pricing and real-time testing for agile environments. In comparison, OpenText attracts enterprises with extensive automation and robust frameworks. BrowserStack's cloud-based model ensures easy deployment, while OpenText's customizable on-premise solution ensures comprehensive support for complex requirements.

Download BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web Report

Pricing

BrowserStack offers a straightforward setup with minimal costs, while OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web involves a more complex setup process with higher initial expenses.

View comparison

Pricing

BrowserStack offers a straightforward setup with minimal costs, while OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web involves a more complex setup process with higher initial expenses.

Perfecto

4.2 out of 5

Perfecto

4.2 out of 5

Perfecto excels with its extensive device lab and efficient test execution speeds. In comparison, OpenText impresses with comprehensive test automation and deep integrations. Perfecto offers straightforward deployment and support, while OpenText provides extensive resources for complex configurations. Perfecto is cost-effective; OpenText offers substantial ROI with advanced features.

Download OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. Perfecto Report

Pricing

Perfecto’s setup costs are low, making it cost-effective, while OpenText Functional Testing Lab incurs higher initial costs, reflecting its broader feature set.

View comparison

Pricing

Perfecto’s setup costs are low, making it cost-effective, while OpenText Functional Testing Lab incurs higher initial costs, reflecting its broader feature set.

Sauce Labs

4.4 out of 5

Sauce Labs

4.4 out of 5

Sauce Labs offers comprehensive browser and device coverage with competitive pricing and easy cloud deployment. In comparison, OpenText provides advanced scripting and management tools, suitable for in-depth enterprise testing, despite potentially higher costs and complex initial setup, making it ideal for extensive feature-rich requirements.

Download OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. Sauce Labs Report

Pricing

Sauce Labs offers a lower setup cost compared to OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web, which presents a costlier initial investment, highlighting their different approaches to onboarding users.

View comparison

Pricing

Ranorex Studio

4.0 out of 5

Ranorex Studio

4.0 out of 5

OpenText excels in mobile app testing with cross-platform tools and seamless web integration. In comparison, Ranorex offers advanced desktop testing with superior scripting options and an extensive automated solutions library, appealing to users seeking comprehensive features despite OpenText’s advantages in pricing and support.

Download OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. Ranorex Studio Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers a more budget-friendly setup cost, while Ranorex Studio may involve a higher initial investment.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers a more budget-friendly setup cost, while Ranorex Studio may involve a higher initial investment.

ReadyAPI

3.9 out of 5

ReadyAPI

3.9 out of 5

OpenText excels in robust automation tools for mobile and web testing with comprehensive support. In comparison, ReadyAPI offers advanced API protocols and efficient deployment. A tech buyer may choose OpenText for cost-effectiveness or ReadyAPI for its superior API testing features.

Download OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. ReadyAPI Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web requires initial investment, whereas ReadyAPI presents a more straightforward and budget-friendly setup cost. These differences highlight distinct budget considerations for potential users.

View comparison

Pricing

HeadSpin

4.0 out of 5

HeadSpin

4.0 out of 5

OpenText offers affordability and integration flexibility, making it ideal for budget-conscious buyers seeking efficient test automation. In comparison, HeadSpin provides advanced data analytics and a global device network, appealing to those prioritizing comprehensive insights and scalability despite higher costs.

Download HeadSpin vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web has a more accessible setup cost, while HeadSpin demands a steeper initial investment. Users should consider these differences when evaluating their testing platform requirements.

View comparison

Pricing

AWS Device Farm

3.3 out of 5

AWS Device Farm

3.3 out of 5

OpenText Functional Testing Lab is preferred for its pricing flexibility and effective customer support. In comparison, AWS Device Farm offers a vast device array and enhanced testing flexibility. OpenText's ease of integration appeals to service-focused companies, while AWS attracts those needing extensive device access.

Download AWS Device Farm vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers a higher setup cost contrasted with AWS Device Farm's cost-effective approach. AWS Device Farm provides a budget-friendly option, while OpenText targets premium users seeking comprehensive testing solutions.

View comparison

Pricing

Digital.ai Continuous Testing

3.5 out of 5

Digital.ai Continuous Testing

3.5 out of 5

OpenText Functional Testing Lab offers robust integration and comprehensive testing, appealing to buyers seeking cross-platform capabilities and strong support. In comparison, Digital.ai Continuous Testing delivers superior automation and agility, attracting those valuing advanced features and efficient deployment for complex test scenarios.

Download Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web typically involves a lower setup cost than Digital.ai Continuous Testing, highlighting a potential cost advantage for those prioritizing initial investment savings.

View comparison

Pricing

SmartBear TestComplete Mobile

4.0 out of 5

SmartBear TestComplete Mobile

4.0 out of 5

OpenText Functional Testing Lab offers cost-effectiveness and seamless integration, appealing to those seeking broad platform support and simplicity. In comparison, SmartBear TestComplete Mobile attracts buyers with advanced customization options and a rich feature set, providing better long-term value despite a higher initial cost.

Download OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. SmartBear TestComplete Mobile Report

Pricing

OpenText Functional Testing Lab has a straightforward setup cost, while SmartBear TestComplete Mobile involves a more intricate setup process. This difference highlights the distinct setup requirements and potential user experiences for both solutions.

View comparison

Pricing

Show 1 more products

Related categories

Mobile App Testing Tools

Functional Testing Tools

Regression Testing Tools