Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BrowserStack vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
6.5
BrowserStack offers ROI through reduced testing time, improved CI/CD integration, enhanced automation, and efficient cross-platform testing.
Sentiment score
5.9
OpenText Functional Testing reduces test automation time and costs, increasing ROI by 70-80% compared to manual testing.
Pipeline executions that used to take eight hours have been reduced to one hour, enhancing continuous deployment and providing quicker feedback cycles.
Managing Technical Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
I think its biggest benefit is how it integrates with our CI/CD, not necessarily giving access to developers for test devices.
Test Software Development Engineer at uShip, Inc.
I have seen a return on investment with BrowserStack, specifically a 50% reduction in human capacity.
Chief Executive Officer & Founder at a tech vendor with 201-500 employees
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.7
BrowserStack's customer service is seen as supportive and efficient, though some seek phone support for quicker responses.
Sentiment score
5.6
OpenText Functional Testing support is generally effective but inconsistent, with improvements noted and suggestions for enhancing responsiveness.
BrowserStack customer support is excellent, with knowledgeable staff assisting throughout onboarding, setup, and understanding our needs to provide tailored solutions.
Managing Technical Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Initially, it was quite poor, but it seems they are making efforts to improve.
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
For technical support, I would give them an eight because whenever we have a concern, they immediately reach out to us.
Engineer at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.8
BrowserStack's scalability is praised for AWS auto-scaling, but cost concerns and varied experiences are noted by users.
Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText Functional Testing offers scalability, supports diverse ecosystems, and enhances integration, though resource consumption is a noted limitation.
BrowserStack's scalability is enhanced by its auto-scaling capabilities on AWS.
Managing Technical Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
They reproduce the same scenario, and then we create the bug ticket for them to fix.
QA Automation Lead at Mashvisor
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
BrowserStack is praised for reliability, though users report occasional mobile issues; rated highly for stability and strong support.
Sentiment score
6.6
Experiences with OpenText Testing vary; some face stability issues, but recent improvements enhance reliability compared to competitors.
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.
Senior Software Engineer at EPAM Systems
Sometimes there is slowness in the network, especially when working with AWS-based hosting.
Vice President at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
We regularly update the product, and overall, it is stable.
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
 

Room For Improvement

BrowserStack needs better connectivity, speed, pricing, integration, real-time testing, mobile file upload, customization, and accessibility support.
OpenText Functional Testing requires enhanced integration, stability, performance, and accessibility for broader technology, mobile support, and modernized interfaces.
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.
Test Software Development Engineer at uShip, Inc.
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.
Managing Technical Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
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.
Vice President at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary.
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
 

Setup Cost

BrowserStack's pricing is seen as higher but cost-effective, offering customizable plans and user-based licenses for enterprise buyers.
Enterprise users find OpenText Functional Testing costly, preferring open-source alternatives, with high setup and licensing fees.
pricing was that it was a bit on the higher side, around three hundred dollars per user per month.
Managing Technical Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
 

Valuable Features

BrowserStack's features enhance testing by providing speed, automation, real device access, and integration, improving performance and reducing defects.
OpenText Functional Testing offers flexibility, integration, and developer-friendly features, enhancing productivity and efficiency with strong stability and automation.
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.
Test Software Development Engineer at uShip, Inc.
BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by helping us reduce the human capacity by 50%, with that reduction mostly being in manual testing efforts.
Chief Executive Officer & Founder at a tech vendor with 201-500 employees
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.
Software Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio.
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
 

Categories and Ranking

BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
11th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 7.5%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.1%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
BrowserStack7.5%
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.1%
Other89.4%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CR
Test Software Development Engineer at uShip, Inc.
Streamlined testing experience with valuable features but high costs prompt a look into alternatives
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 that they don't give you access to, which is understandable. However, being able to have more granular access to the OS would be a good feature. 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. The amount of what LambdaTest has to offer for their price point seems to be a better financial choice for any company at this point. I haven't used LambdaTest yet; we are exploring options with other providers at this time, and LambdaTest has been the only one that's provided any kind of cost-saving benefit while not losing any of the functionality that we expect to have with these products. BrowserStack is really expensive, which is super annoying. Anytime you want something new, it costs an exorbitant amount. We just attempted to increase our seats and they wanted almost double what we were paying, which was insane because it wasn't double the seats. Companies need to make money, but they also need to work with their customers because otherwise, they'll lose them to competitors like LambdaTest who offer similar services for significantly less.
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer 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, and they work well together.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
University
5%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Performing Arts
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise29
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?
The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.
What needs improvement with BrowserStack?
Improvements for BrowserStack could include better usability when working under a private network or a VPN, since it can be challenging to access restricted URLs. There are times when running an au...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.