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

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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
8th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (9th)
 

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 for Developers is 3.7%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.7%
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
Other95.0%
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.…
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"At the moment, all our deploys depend on results of automation. If the tests are failing, then we know that something is wrong at the early stages of development."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"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, the product does what we need and does it well."
"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"Customer Service: The support in the alpha/beta test phase was especially good."
"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."
"Every single feature on offer is valuable and useful."
"The most important thing about LeanFT is that it gives us the opportunity to introduce developer testing."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"Once we upgraded to UFT Pro, it was an easy adoption, even though it's a commercial product, and it supports our approach in agile and DevOps deliveries really well."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
 

Cons

"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default."
"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."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up, as I still sometimes experience lag, which no one loves."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"Ultimately, due to the scripting, integration, and other functionality that is missing, we may switch to another solution in the future."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster."
"I would rate technical support a one out of five."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"This solution is not scalable at all."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"It's newer so it doesn't support as many technologies which makes the investment a little bit harder for us to absorb more licenses than we currently have or to justify buying any more licenses than we currently have because it only supports a certain subset of our customers."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
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%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
 

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 Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.