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

BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT One comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
7.5
Organizations using OpenText UFT One experience up to 300% ROI through enhanced efficiency and 60% test automation.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.4
BrowserStack's customer service is praised for responsiveness, quick issue resolution, and knowledgeable staff, with minor improvement suggestions.
Sentiment score
6.3
OpenText UFT One's customer service is praised for expertise but faces challenges with response speed and technician knowledge variability.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
BrowserStack is scalable, with license expansions and updated OS access, but faces cost, platform support, and connectivity issues.
Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText UFT One is highly scalable, adaptable for varying team sizes, with some execution speed challenges in large test suites.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.8
BrowserStack is praised for stability and reliability, despite occasional connectivity issues and device crashes, with strong performance and pricing.
Sentiment score
6.6
Opinions on OpenText UFT One's stability vary, with some users experiencing stability issues influenced by system specifications and configurations.
 

Room For Improvement

BrowserStack needs improved visibility, file uploads, integrations, speed, support, pricing, device options, AI features, and accessibility testing.
OpenText UFT One needs improvements in compatibility, performance, technology support, integration, cost, and usability for enhanced user experience.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
 

Setup Cost

BrowserStack's tailored enterprise plans are cost-effective compared to Perfecto, offering customizable licenses despite mixed affordability perceptions.
OpenText UFT One is costly but valued for reducing manual testing and enhancing automation efficiency, sometimes offering discounts.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
 

Valuable Features

BrowserStack offers fast, flexible testing across diverse OS and devices with automation, local testing, and seamless integration capabilities.
OpenText UFT One is versatile, supporting multiple platforms with AI capabilities and robust integration for comprehensive test automation.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers.
 

Categories and Ranking

BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
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
94
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (4th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 11.2%, up from 10.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 9.6%, 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.
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Energy/Utilities Company
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: November 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.