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
29th
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 (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 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 8.1%, down from 8.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.1%
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
Other90.6%
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

"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"Overall, the product does what we need and does it well."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"CrossBrowserTesting helps a lot with the responsive testing in different mobiles and browsers and has good tools for our testing like taking videos and screenshots."
"CrossBrowserTesting improved my organization because it eliminates the need for a physical device with a tester to cover our used browsers."
"It helps to speed up the process to test the product in different devices and browsers, making it easy to troubleshoot some issues."
"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."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"Micro Focus' Unified Functional Testing tool is shaping up to return as a major contender in the test automation field."
"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."
"UFT is the only technology that enabled us to actually automate our core application."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test, freeing up the test team to work only on the new portions of the software without having to worry that they are introducing new errors in other areas without knowing it."
"UFT provides Business Process Testing from within UFT, using the native UFT user interface."
"I support UFT as the best solution due to the skill set needed to operate the tool."
 

Cons

"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"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."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"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."
"In terms of what could be improved, they need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user and if we're going to spread this throughout the organization, we'll need to spend a whole lot of money."
"It looks like User Acceptance Testing of the product is getting bypassed entirely because this design has precedence in UFT."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"The user interface could be improved"
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
 

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."
"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."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"The tool's price is high."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"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."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"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."
"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
13%
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: September 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.