

BrowserStack and OpenText Functional Testing for Developers compete in the realm of comprehensive testing tools. BrowserStack has the advantage due to its wide device compatibility and speed, making it preferable for organizations needing quick and diverse testing feedback.
Features: BrowserStack offers high-speed testing, parallel testing, and real-time device access. It supports CICD pipelines and simulates network conditions. OpenText Functional Testing provides robust integration with IDEs, customizes with C# and Java, and offers object-oriented testing for developer-centric environments.
Room for Improvement: BrowserStack needs enhancements in connectivity stability, testing framework integration, and support for real-time GPS testing. It also lacks certain features like file upload automation and has high pricing. OpenText could improve compatibility and stability, support newer technologies, and modernize its scripting approach for easier usability.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BrowserStack supports hybrid and public cloud deployments, providing flexibility, with positive customer service feedback. OpenText relies more on on-premises deployment but has improved customer service, though direct communication could be enhanced.
Pricing and ROI: BrowserStack, while expensive, offers cost-effective solutions with clear ROI through time-saving automation. OpenText is costly but provides notable integration benefits, suiting large enterprises. Both solutions deliver ROI, with BrowserStack excelling in deployment speed and OpenText in technical integration depth.
Pipeline executions that used to take eight hours have been reduced to one hour, enhancing continuous deployment and providing quicker feedback cycles.
I think its biggest benefit is how it integrates with our CI/CD, not necessarily giving access to developers for test devices.
I have seen a return on investment with BrowserStack, specifically a 50% reduction in human capacity.
BrowserStack customer support is excellent, with knowledgeable staff assisting throughout onboarding, setup, and understanding our needs to provide tailored solutions.
Initially, it was quite poor, but it seems they are making efforts to improve.
For technical support, I would give them an eight because whenever we have a concern, they immediately reach out to us.
BrowserStack's scalability is enhanced by its auto-scaling capabilities on AWS.
They reproduce the same scenario, and then we create the bug ticket for them to fix.
BrowserStack is quite stable for me because it offers many different devices, is always up to date, and has a nice user interface with good user experience.
Sometimes there is slowness in the network, especially when working with AWS-based hosting.
We regularly update the product, and overall, it is stable.
BrowserStack is very expensive and they keep increasing their cost, which is absolutely ridiculous, especially when someone like LambdaTest is coming through for literal thousands of dollars less, with the same services.
Going forward, one way BrowserStack could improve is by incorporating AI concepts to create tests automatically from provided URLs or user intentions, generating scripts without needing users to write automation scripts.
I think false positives are an area where BrowserStack can improve, as I have often seen things working fine on actual devices, but on BrowserStack devices, issues arise due to network slowness or AWS region connectivity problems that cause lag.
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary.
pricing was that it was a bit on the higher side, around three hundred dollars per user per month.
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
The device farm is one of the positive impacts we have seen from using BrowserStack. We get to run our automation against their full suite of devices, which alleviates the uplift of manual testing.
BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by helping us reduce the human capacity by 50%, with that reduction mostly being in manual testing efforts.
BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization primarily through time savings because it is very easy to use and replicates physical devices for testing, which is crucial since we usually do not have physical devices.
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| BrowserStack | 8.1% |
| OpenText Functional Testing for Developers | 3.1% |
| Other | 88.8% |

| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 10 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 8 |
| Large Enterprise | 14 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 2 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 12 |
| Large Enterprise | 29 |
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.
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers robust automation capabilities with support for complex algorithms, multi-platform testing, and developer-friendly integration using C# and Java, facilitating seamless testing transitions and efficient automation workflows.
This testing tool is highly valued for its integration with ALM and Jenkins, along with its developer-focused environment adaptable to Eclipse and Visual Studio. With AI-based object recognition, an object repository, and test framework integration, it bolsters DevOps practices while reducing IT workloads. Supporting UFT to LeanFT transition, it caters to SAP, Java, .NET environments, and more. Enhanced with stable automation, extensive protocol support, and both on-premises and cloud deployments, it targets performance, regression, and functional testing, while recording and screengrabs enhance automation capabilities. Future improvements could include expanded browser compatibility, enhanced JavaScript and mobile support, and better object recognition.
What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers?Organizations implement OpenText Functional Testing for complex test automation on desktop, web, and banking applications, supporting performance, regression, and functionality testing across environments like SAP, Java, and .NET. UFT aids in GUI, infrastructure, and ERP application automation, with deployment options including on-premises and cloud implementations. Enhanced screengrabs and recording features aid in practical test case development, while addressing emerging technology needs is a focus.
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.