BrowserStack vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web comparison

BrowserStack and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText is ranked #18 with an average rating of 8.3. BrowserStack holds a 10.7% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 0.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 82% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 26 BrowserStack reviews

5,815 Views
5,466 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 17 OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web reviews

935 Views
608 Comparison Views

82% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText Functional Testing...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

BrowserStack and OpenText Functional Testing Lab are competing tools in software testing, with BrowserStack having an edge in pricing and support based on user feedback. OpenText Functional Testing Lab is considered superior due to its robust features and effectiveness, justifying the investment.

Features: BrowserStack provides a comprehensive range of real device testing capabilities, supports integrations with various development tools, and offers a cloud infrastructure. OpenText Functional Testing Lab offers comprehensive test automation, specialized scripting options, and supports both real devices and emulators enhancing its testing capability.

Room for Improvement: BrowserStack could improve in providing more detailed analytics and expanding its support for additional scripting languages. It could also enhance its network condition simulations. OpenText Functional Testing Lab may benefit from streamlining its setup process and simplifying its user interface. Increasing the number of real devices available for testing could also be advantageous.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BrowserStack provides a straightforward cloud-based deployment model with responsive customer service praised for its simplicity. OpenText Functional Testing Lab, while requiring a more complex initial setup, provides robust technical support that is favored by users with extensive configuration needs.

Pricing and ROI: BrowserStack offers competitive pricing and delivers good ROI through its ease of use and quick setup, minimizing downtime. OpenText Functional Testing Lab, while having a higher initial cost, offers greater ROI through advanced features and effectiveness in comprehensive testing environments.

To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 861,524 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 Functional Testing...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

18th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (6th)

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.7%, down from 11.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is 0.9%, up from 0.8% 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

Robinson Caiado

Sales Leader at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Automates mobile solutions while boosting productivity and fostering innovation

It allows multiple devices to be used and gives flexibility in adding devices when a project is needed. Most of the time, I have several devices where it is predefined. We can use it, but sometimes, we must scale it in a particular situation. It's very flexible. It is very important because we can use a different approach to software testing, for example, to find a way to execute UFT software testing with only one execution. This reproduces all the platforms that we need.

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 integration is very good."

"I like that it offers full device capability."

"The main core concept behind this product is, it takes the overhead of maintaining all of your devices or particular computers. It continuously adds the latest devices that are coming into the market."

"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."

"It is a scalable solution."

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

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

"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."

More BrowserStack pros

"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."

"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."

"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."

"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."

"The product is easy to use."

"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."

"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."

Cons

"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."

"We had some execution issues."

"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."

"I would like to see clearer visibility."

"The solution is slow."

"We are struggling to do local testing."

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

"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."

More BrowserStack cons

"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."

"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."

"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."

"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."

"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."

"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is fine."

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

"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."

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

"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."

"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 product could be more affordable."

"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."

"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."

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

861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

University

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

17%

Non Profit

10%

Educational Organization

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?

In terms of improvements, they can make it snappier. Everything kind of works. They have locked down the phones, which is problematic because there are some test cases that require access to things...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

Sometimes, it's challenging to have relations with OpenText support.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

We use it in financial services companies to automate mobile solutions and applications.

See all answers

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 35% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 24% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 5% of the time

Appium vs BrowserStack

Compared 1% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

Sauce Labs vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 17% of the time

Perfecto vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 15% of the time

Appium vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 14% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 10% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 9% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

July 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

June 2025

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web report

Download OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center

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 Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers integration with HPE and non-HPE tools, real device testing, and device management. It supports real-time analytics and multi-platform testing, ensuring traceability and flexibility with decentralized devices.

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is designed to enhance testing efficiency for mobile and desktop applications by allowing ease of integration with different testing environments. It features real-time analytics, supports automated device management, and provides the flexibility of decentralized testing on real devices. With a focus on robust traceability, it stands out as a comprehensive choice for optimizing software development life cycles, especially notable for its ability to support multiple devices simultaneously and strategic scaling through network virtualization and AWS device farm.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing Lab?

Ease of Use: Intuitive interface facilitating user engagement.
Integration: Compatible with HPE and non-HPE tools for improved workflow.
Real Device Testing: Ensures testing on actual devices for accurate results.
Automation: Advanced capabilities streamline repetitive testing.
Device Management: Flexible management of decentralized devices.
Multi-Platform Support: Simultaneous testing across various platforms.
Traceability: Strong application delivery traceability for robust tracking.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Scalability: Ability to handle multiple devices and scale as needed.
Flexibility: Deployment options include both on-premises and cloud-based solutions.
Real-Time Analytics: Provides actionable insights for data-driven decisions.
Enhanced Performance: Optimizes the software development lifecycle.
Comprehensive Testing: Facilitates thorough functional and performance testing.

Financial services companies utilize OpenText Functional Testing Lab for optimizing mobile solutions and applications, ensuring a streamlined integration into their Application Lifecycle Management and Unified Functional Testing processes. It aids in functional and performance testing, adapting to both on-premises and cloud deployments to suit industry-specific demands.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

July 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web 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.