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

BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT One comparison

BrowserStack and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.3, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.1. BrowserStack holds a 10.4% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 10.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OpenText users who would recommend it.
BrowserStack
Read 25 BrowserStack reviews
  • 5,813 Views
  • 4,866 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
OpenText UFT One
Read 95 OpenText UFT One reviews
  • 7,140 Views
  • 4,477 Comparison Views
88% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT One and BrowserStack both compete in the software testing tools category. OpenText UFT One has the upper hand due to its extensive automation frameworks and support for diverse environments, making it suitable for complex enterprise needs, while BrowserStack shines in cross-browser testing efficiency.

Features: OpenText UFT One supports testing across multiple technologies, including desktop and web-based applications, and is recognized for features like object recognition and business process testing. BrowserStack excels in cross-browser testing, providing tools for testing web applications' responsiveness on various devices, highlighted for its device variability.

Room for Improvement: Users of OpenText UFT One have pointed out limitations such as browser compatibility, UI enhancements, and .NET automation challenges. BrowserStack users face issues with connectivity, performance speed, and navigation within the interface, and suggest improvements in integration and usability for non-technical users.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One is best suited for on-premises deployment with private cloud options, though it involves complex integration. Its customer service experience varies based on support contracts. BrowserStack offers seamless deployment in hybrid and public cloud environments, praised for easy setup and reliable customer support.

Pricing and ROI: Both OpenText UFT One and BrowserStack are considered expensive, with OpenText UFT One providing significant ROI through automation efficiency, despite high upfront costs. BrowserStack offers competitive per-user pricing and is valued for cost-effective device testing across a wide range of devices.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One Report (Updated: February 2025).
Buyer's Guide
BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One
February 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 845,406 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
25
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
95
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.4%, down from 10.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 10.1%, up from 9.6% 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.
Read full review
Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results
With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.
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 speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"The main core concept behind this product is, it takes the overhead of maintaining all of your devices or particular computers. It continuously adds the latest devices that are coming into the market."
"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."
"The integration is very good."
More BrowserStack pros
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."
More OpenText UFT One pros
 

Cons

"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."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"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."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
More BrowserStack cons
"UFT still requires some coding."
"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."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
More OpenText UFT One cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is fine."
"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."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"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."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"The price is reasonable."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The tool's price is high."
More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice
report
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
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
 

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?
I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product. Accessibility testing is an area of concern where improvements are required.
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?
UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack Logo
LambdaTest vs BrowserStack
Compared 34% of the time
Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack Logo
Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack
Compared 23% of the time
Perfecto vs BrowserStack Logo
Perfecto vs BrowserStack
Compared 19% of the time
Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack
Compared 5% of the time
Bitbar vs BrowserStack Logo
Bitbar vs BrowserStack
Compared 2% of the time
More BrowserStack Competitors
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 31% of the time
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One Logo
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 11% of the time
Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 9% of the time
UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One Logo
UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 9% of the time
Postman vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Postman vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 1% of the time
More OpenText UFT One Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
BrowserStack
March 2025
BrowserStack reportDownload BrowserStack product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT One
March 2025
OpenText UFT One reportDownload OpenText UFT One 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

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

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 UFT One
February 2025
Free Report: BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One 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.