BrowserStack vs OpenText Business Processing Testing 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 #39. BrowserStack holds a 10.4% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 0.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 25 BrowserStack reviews

5,813 Views
4,866 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Business Processin...

Read 7 OpenText Business Processing Testing reviews

126 Views
52 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText Business Processin...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText Business Processing Testing and BrowserStack are competing products in the realm of software testing solutions. While both offer robust testing capabilities, data comparisons indicate that BrowserStack might be the preferred option due to its comprehensive feature set, which users consider worth the investment.

Features: OpenText Business Processing Testing offers automated business process validation, integration capabilities, and re-usability of content. BrowserStack provides versatile cross-browser testing on real devices, extensive device and OS coverage, and the ability to test across devices including geographic mimicking and VPN configuration.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Business Processing Testing could improve in areas such as the complexity of setup, pricing transparency, and adaptability for smaller businesses. BrowserStack might benefit from extending their trial period, improving documentation for new users, and enhancing performance under low bandwidth conditions.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Business Processing Testing features an enterprise-focused deployment model with dedicated support options. In contrast, BrowserStack offers a cloud-based deployment, reducing setup time and complexity while often being highlighted for responsive customer service. The difference lies in OpenText's tailored support versus BrowserStack’s simplicity and rapid assistance.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Business Processing Testing, while beneficial in long-term enterprise use with a potentially higher setup cost, provides significant ROI through dedicated process testing. BrowserStack offers a more affordable initial investment with quick ROI potential, attributed to its scalable subscription models.

To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing Report (Updated: February 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing

February 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 846,617 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

Ranking in other categories

AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)

OpenText Business Processin...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

39th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

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 Business Processing Testing is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale

Sr Practice Lead - Business and Experience Transformation at Peristent Systems

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

it_user309363

Regional Infrastructure Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

We use UFT for the scalability and cross-technology diversity, UFT API for the web-service and database related testing, and HP BPT for the modular testing.

We can now take test automation through the entire business process -- testing web service availability before automated test packs start, sending and retrieving data via web-services and control of all web service testing in a single tool, along with the GUI testing of business processes across a multitude of platforms from java web through to AS400 green screen terminal apps. BPT allows you to manage all the test resources and artifacts inside of Quality Center, including all data and test flows, and to have a single point for reporting. To give you an example, we built a series of tests that would firstly fire off web-service calls to ensure the required services were running. We would then do data creation using a series of Excel VB functions (called by UFT through BPT), and then launch into GUI testing of complex webmethods Java web portals to take a business process through a series of screens, capture required data and test screen functionality, write all runtime data back to QC datasets, then call the data later in the BPT test to validate it across database checks using HP UFT API, build and execute SQL queries, and finally validate information for accounting purposes of data sitting on AS400 or payment databases.

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

"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."

"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."

"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."

"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."

"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."

"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."

"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."

"It just added some flexibility. There was nothing that improved our coding standards, etc. because all of our UIs were functional before we tried it."

More BrowserStack pros

"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."

"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."

Cons

"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."

"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."

"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."

"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."

"I would like to see clearer visibility."

"We had some execution issues."

"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."

"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."

More BrowserStack cons

"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."

"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is fine."

"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."

"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."

"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."

"This solution costs less than competing products."

"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."

Information not available

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

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

Retailer

No data available

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 34% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 23% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 19% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 5% of the time

CrossBrowserTesting vs BrowserStack

Compared 3% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

No data available

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

April 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Business Processing Testing

March 2025

OpenText Business Processing Testing report

Download OpenText Business Processing Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus Business Process Testing, Business Process Testing, HPE Business Process Testing

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

OpenText Business Processing Testing (BPT) test framework software will help you move from one-off manual testing and ad hoc functional automated testing to an architected approach with a library of reusable test components. BPT accelerates the move to component-based testing with an integrated test framework approach to creating a repository of reusable test modules that allow for changes to be made once, then propagated across your distributed agile teams to all affected tests.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

Migros Bank AG

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing

February 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing report.

See our list of best Functional 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.