BrowserStack vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

BrowserStack and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.8. BrowserStack holds a 10.7% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 9.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 26 BrowserStack reviews

5,517 Views
5,131 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 97 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,409 Views
6,139 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and BrowserStack are both key players in the realms of functional and cross-browser testing. OpenText holds the upper hand in enterprise-level integration and compatibility, while BrowserStack appeals to cost-conscious teams needing broad device compatibility.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers extensive browser support, test object management, and integration capabilities for GUI, API, and desktop applications. It provides the flexibility of Insight and LeanFT for advanced object recognition, covering a wide range of application types. BrowserStack excels with a broad suite of real device testing, geographic simulation capabilities, and comprehensive cross-browser testing, quickly unveiling compatibility issues across diverse configurations.

Room for Improvement: OpenText users express the need for enhanced speed, better memory usage, and improved stability on virtual machines, alongside better .NET support and an expanded browser compatibility. BrowserStack users suggest improvements in application speed, more diverse device offerings, and customer support responsiveness, with pricing being a point of contention against competitors offering similar features.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is typically deployed on-premises with optional cloud integration, which suits companies with stringent security or customization needs. Customer service receives good ratings, though support speed can depend on contract level. BrowserStack, being predominantly cloud-based, facilitates effortless cross-device deployment, excelling in flexibility and dynamic scaling scenarios. Customer service feedback is mixed, often dependent on individual interactions and specific technical requirements.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is a premium solution with ROI driven by its expansive compatibility and automation capabilities, ideal for large enterprises requiring comprehensive testing. The investment is offset by reductions in manual testing and increased testing precision over time. BrowserStack, although perceived as costly by some, offers a more accessible entry point for smaller teams seeking efficient cross-browser testing without the need for maintaining physical devices. ROI is mainly realized through productivity enhancements in testing across multiple platforms.

To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: August 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing

August 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,295 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

BrowserStack

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)

OpenText Functional Testing

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

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.7%, down from 11.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 9.2%, down from 9.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale

Sr Practice Lead - Business and Experience Transformation at Peristent Systems

Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users

I integrated BrowserStack into our company's web and application test workflows because it has plugins that work with browsers and applications, allowing for cross-browser testing. BrowserStack was really helpful for cross-browser testing in areas involving mobiles, web applications, or tablets. The tool can help with the testing across all applications. I have not experienced any time-saving feature from the use of the tool. My company uses the product for real-device testing since it has a bunch of devices in our library. My company has a repository where we do manual testing. BrowserStack improved the quality of our company's applications. Improvements I have seen with the testing part revolve around the fact that it is able to do testing at a fast pace. The quality of the product is better since it can go through all the parts of the applications, meaning it can provide high test coverage. The tool is also good in the area of automation. The test coverage is higher, and the time taken during the testing phase is less due to automation. I have not used the product's integration capabilities since my company doesn't have the option to look at other QA testing tools like Selenium, which can be used for the automation capabilities provided. The product should offer more support for cross-browser testing, device testing, and testing across multiple devices. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Read full review

Badari Mallireddy

QA Automation Architect at Emerson

Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development

I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…

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

"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."

"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."

"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."

"It just added some flexibility. There was nothing that improved our coding standards, etc. because all of our UIs were functional before we tried it."

"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."

"I like that it offers full device capability."

"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."

"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."

More BrowserStack pros

"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."

"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."

"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."

"The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool."

"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."

"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."

"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."

"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."

"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."

"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."

"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."

"Sometimes BrowserStack is really slow and devices are not loading. it is really annoying and that's why we bought several newer devices because sometimes it's affecting us a lot."

"There is room for improvement in pricing."

More BrowserStack cons

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

"The initial setup is complex."

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

"We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing."

"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."

"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."

"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."

"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."

"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."

"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."

"The price is fine."

"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"This solution costs less than competing products."

"There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"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.""

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

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

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

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

More OpenText Functional Testing 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

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

University

Manufacturing Company

19%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

12%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?

The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BrowserStack?

My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses.

See all answers

What needs improvement with BrowserStack?

In terms of improvements, they can make it snappier. Everything kind of works. They have locked down the phones, which is problematic because there are some test cases that require access to things...

See all answers

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?

Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the public repository when using Object Spy and adding objects, as it currently stor...

See all answers

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 34% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 23% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 4% of the time

Bitbar vs BrowserStack

Compared 2% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 26% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 12% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 2% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

August 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

August 2025

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

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

Overview

BrowserStack is a cloud-based cross-browser testing tool that enables developers to test their websites across various browserson different operating systems and mobile devices, without requiring users to install virtual machines, devices or emulators.

BrowserStack

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing

August 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: August 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing 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.