No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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

CrossBrowserTesting
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
28th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.3%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.7%, up from 8.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.7%
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
Other90.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CN
Senior DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Knowledgeable support, scalable, and stable
We use CrossBrowserTesting for testing our web-based applications We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve. I have used CrossBrowserTesting within the past 12 months. CrossBrowserTesting is stable. I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable.…
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"CrossBrowserTesting improved my organization because it eliminates the need for a physical device with a tester to cover our used browsers."
"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."
"Record and Replay is the most used functionality for us, as we can record the test cases and play them on multiple combinations of platforms."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"It was the perfect solution that saved us time and money to perform web viewing tests on real devices, which allowed our team to correct multiple failures in devices."
"Due to serious testing needs across platforms and devices, we found CrossBrowserTesting a useful tool as it has the capability for functional testing, UI testing, automated testing just on few clicks."
"We no longer need to have a full QA team, testing is more quickly and reliably reproduced, and scheduled daily tests assist in catching any bugs which fall through the cracks and make it to the production environment."
"The screen shot portal is essential for an easy way to run tests across hundreds of browsers and retrieve screenshots which then indicate success or failure."
"For the QTP/UFT projects I have worked on ROI is always over 300% in the long term."
"UFT is easy to use for functional testing, so for me it’s very important that it can travel across a large range of technologies."
"I support UFT as the best solution due to the skill set needed to operate the tool."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"At our company, we have everything from mainframe to modern web UI, and UFT allows us to test all of those sites."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The fact that it works with a vast number of technologies works for us because our internal customers use the tool for testing a lot of different applications."
 

Cons

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up, as I still sometimes experience lag, which no one loves."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"We have to download it, then install it on our own machines and the machines sometimes aren't stable; since we have PDIs, also the UFT isn't stable and I don't know yet where the connection is."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"It’s in the middle and not always 100% reliable."
"The user interface could be improved"
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"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."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.