Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT One 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 #2 with an average rating of 8.1. BrowserStack holds a 10.4% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 10.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% 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 One
Read 96 OpenText UFT One reviews
  • 7,140 Views
  • 4,477 Comparison Views
87% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT One and BrowserStack both compete in the software testing tools category. OpenText UFT One has the upper hand due to its extensive automation frameworks and support for diverse environments, making it suitable for complex enterprise needs, while BrowserStack shines in cross-browser testing efficiency.

Features: OpenText UFT One supports testing across multiple technologies, including desktop and web-based applications, and is recognized for features like object recognition and business process testing. BrowserStack excels in cross-browser testing, providing tools for testing web applications' responsiveness on various devices, highlighted for its device variability.

Room for Improvement: Users of OpenText UFT One have pointed out limitations such as browser compatibility, UI enhancements, and .NET automation challenges. BrowserStack users face issues with connectivity, performance speed, and navigation within the interface, and suggest improvements in integration and usability for non-technical users.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One is best suited for on-premises deployment with private cloud options, though it involves complex integration. Its customer service experience varies based on support contracts. BrowserStack offers seamless deployment in hybrid and public cloud environments, praised for easy setup and reliable customer support.

Pricing and ROI: Both OpenText UFT One and BrowserStack are considered expensive, with OpenText UFT One providing significant ROI through automation efficiency, despite high upfront costs. BrowserStack offers competitive per-user pricing and is valued for cost-effective device testing across a wide range of devices.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One Report (Updated: February 2025).
Buyer's Guide
BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One
February 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 845,564 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
25
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
96
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)
 

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 One is 10.1%, up from 9.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale - PeerSpot reviewer
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
Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results
With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.
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 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."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."
More BrowserStack pros
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
More OpenText UFT One pros
 

Cons

"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."
"We had some execution issues."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
More BrowserStack cons
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"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."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
More OpenText UFT One cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"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 price is fine."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"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."
"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.""
"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."
"It's an expensive solution."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"The tool's price is high."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice
report
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
845,564 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
 

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
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...
See all answers
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
See all answers
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack Logo
LambdaTest vs BrowserStack
Compared 34% of the time
Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack Logo
Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack
Compared 23% of the time
Perfecto vs BrowserStack Logo
Perfecto vs BrowserStack
Compared 19% of the time
Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack
Compared 5% of the time
Bitbar vs BrowserStack Logo
Bitbar vs BrowserStack
Compared 2% of the time
More BrowserStack Competitors
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 31% of the time
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One Logo
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 12% of the time
Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 9% of the time
UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One Logo
UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 9% of the time
Postman vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Postman vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 1% of the time
More OpenText UFT One Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
BrowserStack
April 2025
BrowserStack reportDownload BrowserStack product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT One
March 2025
OpenText UFT One reportDownload OpenText UFT One product report
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

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

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

OpenText
 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Buyer's Guide
BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One
February 2025
Free Report: BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
845,564 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.