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 88% 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 95 OpenText UFT One reviews
  • 7,140 Views
  • 4,477 Comparison Views
88% 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 844,944 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
95
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

"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"I've worked on testing integrations with BrowserStack, particularly with a platform called IT. This involves testing the registration process, including receiving verification codes on devices and phones. BrowserStack has been excellent for testing these integrations, providing a seamless workflow development experience."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
More BrowserStack pros
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"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."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
More OpenText UFT One pros
 

Cons

"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"We had some execution issues."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"The solution is slow."
More BrowserStack cons
"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"The user interface could be improved"
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"The solution is expensive."
More OpenText UFT One cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"The price is fine."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"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 of BrowserStack is high."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"The price is reasonable."
"It's an expensive solution."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"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 a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
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
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
19%
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
Selenium HQ vs BrowserStack Logo
Selenium HQ 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 11% 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
March 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
844,944 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.