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

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

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
27th
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
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.4%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.1%, down from 9.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.1%
CrossBrowserTesting1.4%
Other91.5%
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

"Overall, the product does what we need and does it well."
"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."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"Aside from speeding up our processes, it also allowed us to tie in our automated test scenarios and integrate our reporting tools to make the entire process efficient and hassle free."
"Overall, this solution has proved useful to our organization, and with future improvements and the hopeful addition of devices, it will continue to be a tool we use daily."
"This makes UFT the “everything and the kitchen sink” of automation tools, with an easy to learn language, a solid history, and extensive support resources."
"My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it integrates well into your environment, is easy to use, easy to maintain, and makes your development efforts more efficient."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"We are a worldwide organization with a complex financial authorization matrix and when changes were made to this matrix, we provided automated test scripts and more than 20,000 tests were executed in 1 week."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
 

Cons

"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up, as I still sometimes experience lag, which no one loves."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."
"Automated testing could be improved."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."
"It looks like User Acceptance Testing of the product is getting bypassed entirely because this design has precedence in UFT."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"The solution works for the most part, but the IDE is horrible (although I hear version 12 has a revamped IDE and is much better) and as a result of VBScript being the language, there is no stack trace information available so debugging some errors is not an easy task."
"I don't like this tool and I don't think that it's a successful example for automation."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"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."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"The price is reasonable."
"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 solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"The tool's price is high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Transportation Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
6%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

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: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.