BrowserStack vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web 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 #18 with an average rating of 8.0. BrowserStack holds a 10.0% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 1.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 26 BrowserStack reviews

4,859 Views
4,470 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 18 OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web reviews

956 Views
660 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText Functional Testing...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

BrowserStack and OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web compete in testing web and mobile applications. OpenText Testing Lab holds a slight edge with its robust features, while BrowserStack excels in pricing and support accessibility.

Features: BrowserStack provides a wide array of devices and seamless CI/CD integration, crucial for efficient testing. Its simplicity in implementing tests across multiple platforms stands out. OpenText Testing Lab, meanwhile, thrives with comprehensive test management tools and advanced automation options, catering especially to enterprise-level requirements.

Room for Improvement: BrowserStack could enhance its in-depth test management features and expand automation capabilities to cater to more complex enterprise needs. It should also work on increasing the ease of use in its scripting tools. OpenText Testing Lab, while formidable in features, could improve deployment speed and streamline its price model to better accommodate smaller teams. Simplifying its interface for first-time users could also enhance overall user experience.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BrowserStack is valued for its swift deployment and direct customer support, making it ideal for rapid adoption. Its setup process is straightforward, minimizing the time from purchase to operation. OpenText Testing Lab, with its extensive feature set, typically involves a more elaborate deployment process requiring dedicated support for tailored setups but benefits organizations with complex environments.

Pricing and ROI: BrowserStack's lower setup costs and flexible pricing options facilitate a quicker ROI for various team sizes, making it an attractive choice for budget-conscious projects. OpenText Testing Lab involves a higher initial investment, yet its features potentially yield a greater ROI for large enterprises by catering to extensive testing requirements. Organizations weigh between upfront affordability and long-term value based on scale and testing objectives.

To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 868,759 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

18th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.0%, down from 11.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is 1.2%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
BrowserStack	10.0%
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web	1.2%
Other	88.8%

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

Robinson Caiado

Sales Leader at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Automates mobile solutions while boosting productivity and fostering innovation

It allows multiple devices to be used and gives flexibility in adding devices when a project is needed. Most of the time, I have several devices where it is predefined. We can use it, but sometimes, we must scale it in a particular situation. It's very flexible. It is very important because we can use a different approach to software testing, for example, to find a way to execute UFT software testing with only one execution. This reproduces all the platforms that we need.

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

"The most valuable feature is that it provides parallel and cross-browser testing. It enables us to run tests on multiple browsers or devices simultaneously."

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

"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."

"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."

"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."

"The integration is very good."

"I've worked on testing integrations with BrowserStack, particularly with a platform called IT. This involves testing the registration process, including receiving verification codes on devices and phones. BrowserStack has been excellent for testing these integrations, providing a seamless workflow development experience."

"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."

More BrowserStack pros

"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."

"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."

"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."

"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."

"The product is easy to use."

"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."

Cons

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

"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."

"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."

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

"We are struggling to do local testing."

"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."

"Customer support could be better. We tried to implement and explore this product with the vendor or reseller's help, but we haven't had any good response about the product."

"The solution is slow."

More BrowserStack cons

"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."

"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."

"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."

"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."

"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."

"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."

"OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web could benefit from implementing a low-code, no-code solution that aids in quick automation code preparation."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is fine."

"This solution costs less than competing products."

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

"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."

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

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

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

"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."

"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."

"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."

"The product could be more affordable."

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

868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

University

Computer Software Company

19%

Financial Services Firm

17%

Non Profit

10%

Educational Organization

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	2
Large Enterprise	13

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

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web could benefit from implementing a low-code, no-code solution that aids in quick automation code preparation. Additionally, from a strategic standp...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web can be used for a range of applications, not just web and mobile. It works very well for SAP, which is an enterprise platform. It can be used for ...

See all answers

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 32% 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 5% of the time

Eggplant Test vs BrowserStack

Compared 1% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

Sauce Labs vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 20% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 11% of the time

Perfecto vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 11% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 11% of the time

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

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

September 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

September 2025

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web report

Download OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center

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 Lab for Mobile and Web offers integration with HPE and non-HPE tools, real device testing, and device management. It supports real-time analytics and multi-platform testing, ensuring traceability and flexibility with decentralized devices.

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is designed to enhance testing efficiency for mobile and desktop applications by allowing ease of integration with different testing environments. It features real-time analytics, supports automated device management, and provides the flexibility of decentralized testing on real devices. With a focus on robust traceability, it stands out as a comprehensive choice for optimizing software development life cycles, especially notable for its ability to support multiple devices simultaneously and strategic scaling through network virtualization and AWS device farm.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing Lab?

Ease of Use: Intuitive interface facilitating user engagement.
Integration: Compatible with HPE and non-HPE tools for improved workflow.
Real Device Testing: Ensures testing on actual devices for accurate results.
Automation: Advanced capabilities streamline repetitive testing.
Device Management: Flexible management of decentralized devices.
Multi-Platform Support: Simultaneous testing across various platforms.
Traceability: Strong application delivery traceability for robust tracking.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Scalability: Ability to handle multiple devices and scale as needed.
Flexibility: Deployment options include both on-premises and cloud-based solutions.
Real-Time Analytics: Provides actionable insights for data-driven decisions.
Enhanced Performance: Optimizes the software development lifecycle.
Comprehensive Testing: Facilitates thorough functional and performance testing.

Financial services companies utilize OpenText Functional Testing Lab for optimizing mobile solutions and applications, ensuring a streamlined integration into their Application Lifecycle Management and Unified Functional Testing processes. It aids in functional and performance testing, adapting to both on-premises and cloud deployments to suit industry-specific demands.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

September 2025

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

Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web report.

See our list of best Functional 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.