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

BrowserStack vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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
26
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
17th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (4th)
 

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 Lab for Mobile and Web is 0.9%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Robinson Caiado - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Maintenance of the solution is easy."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"The device farm is one of the positive impacts we have seen from using BrowserStack."
"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 speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."
"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."
"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 product is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
 

Cons

"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."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"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."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"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."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
"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."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"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."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"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."
"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"The price is fine."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"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."
"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
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
8%
University
6%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
17%
Non Profit
10%
Educational Organization
5%
 

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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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 ...
 

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

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.