BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT Developer 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 #13 with an average rating of 7.8. BrowserStack holds a 10.4% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 2.6% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 76% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 25 BrowserStack reviews

5,813 Views
4,866 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Developer

Read 37 OpenText UFT Developer reviews

1,882 Views
1,294 Comparison Views

76% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText UFT Developer

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

BrowserStack and OpenText UFT Developer compete in the software testing category. BrowserStack has an advantage in ease of use and customer support, while OpenText UFT Developer stands out for its feature richness, ideal for advanced testing.

Features: BrowserStack provides live testing on real devices, integrates with CI/CD tools, and supports automated testing. OpenText UFT Developer offers advanced automation for web, mobile, and enterprise apps, includes AI-driven features, and enhances test accuracy.

Room for Improvement: BrowserStack could broaden its feature set and documentation to match skilled users' needs. Increasing supported device variety and enhancing real-time testing could be beneficial. OpenText UFT Developer could simplify its interface and reduce setup times for new users. Streamlining its AI features and reducing initial learning curves would help.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BrowserStack features an easy deployment model focused on quick setup and accessible support. OpenText UFT Developer, while requiring more initial setup, compensates with extensive documentation and strong technical support that supports post-deployment stages thoroughly.

Pricing and ROI: BrowserStack offers lower initial costs and a transparent pricing model, providing significant ROI through scalability. OpenText UFT Developer involves higher upfront expenses but offers substantial ROI for those utilizing its extensive feature set.

To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer Report (Updated: February 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer

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 UFT Developer

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

13th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (13th)

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 UFT Developer is 2.6%, down from 2.9% 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

Mohamed Bosri

Process Architect Referent at Forvia

Efficient recording feature shines amid expected desktop and website enhancements

Our use case involves functionality for a system ERP. We work with Deviation, which is stable and receives positive feedback from users OpenText UFT Developer allows junior testers to learn through open source and online resources like YouTube. They can find solutions to issues even if the…

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

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

"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."

"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."

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

"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."

"The most valuable feature is that it provides parallel and cross-browser testing. It enables us to run tests on multiple browsers or devices simultaneously."

"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."

"I like that it offers full device capability."

More BrowserStack pros

"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."

"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."

"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."

"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."

"Integrates well with other products."

"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."

"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."

More OpenText UFT Developer pros

Cons

"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."

"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."

"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."

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

"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."

"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."

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

"Customer support could be better. We tried to implement and explore this product with the vendor or reseller's help, but we haven't had any good response about the product."

More BrowserStack cons

"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."

"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."

"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."

"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."

"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."

"Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously."

More OpenText UFT Developer cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

"The price is fine."

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"This solution costs less than competing products."

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"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."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"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."

More OpenText UFT Developer pricing and cost advice

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

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

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

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

It's a high-priced solution compared to Selenium. Selenium is free, though there is a paid version now too. Selenium has improved a lot, and it's still okay to use. It's a functional testing tool, ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites. It is also suggested that the design and some functionality could be better.

See all answers

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

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 60% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 20% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 3% of the time

Eggplant Test vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText UFT Developer Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

April 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer

March 2025

Download OpenText UFT Developer product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

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

With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer

February 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer

Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer 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.