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

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Business Processing Testing comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #28, while OpenText is ranked #39. SmartBear holds a 0.7% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 0.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.
CrossBrowserTesting
Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews
  • 589 Views
  • 449 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
OpenText Business Processin...
Read 7 OpenText Business Processing Testing reviews
  • 126 Views
  • 52 Comparison Views
83% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText Business Processing Testing and CrossBrowserTesting compete in software testing. CrossBrowserTesting has an edge with its versatile features and perceived value despite higher costs.

Features: OpenText offers automated testing, integration with business tools, and a modular framework for test development separate from automation. CrossBrowserTesting provides cross-browser compatibility, real-device testing, and session recording or replay capabilities.

Room for Improvement: OpenText could improve faster setup, broader cross-platform support, and offer more intuitive user interfaces. CrossBrowserTesting can enhance handling of outdated browsers, improve detailed reporting features, and streamline tools to manage testing scenarios for large teams.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: CrossBrowserTesting's cloud-based deployment supports scalability and ease of use, backed by responsive customer support. OpenText, while offering solid customer service, might be more complex to deploy due to its focus on enterprise levels.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText is considered budget-friendly with good ROI for process automation. CrossBrowserTesting, with possible higher initial costs, offers great ROI through shortened test cycles and comprehensive testing functionality.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing Report (Updated: February 2025).
Buyer's Guide
CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing
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

CrossBrowserTesting
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
28th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Business Processin...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
39th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.7%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Business Processing Testing is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Michael Hutchison - PeerSpot reviewer
Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems
The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default. Every time, I have to select the full screen, then restart its captures, which seems a waste of time and energy. This is, admittedly, a minor complaint.
Read full review
it_user309363 - PeerSpot reviewer
We use UFT for the scalability and cross-technology diversity, UFT API for the web-service and database related testing, and HP BPT for the modular testing.
We can now take test automation through the entire business process -- testing web service availability before automated test packs start, sending and retrieving data via web-services and control of all web service testing in a single tool, along with the GUI testing of business processes across a multitude of platforms from java web through to AS400 green screen terminal apps. BPT allows you to manage all the test resources and artifacts inside of Quality Center, including all data and test flows, and to have a single point for reporting. To give you an example, we built a series of tests that would firstly fire off web-service calls to ensure the required services were running. We would then do data creation using a series of Excel VB functions (called by UFT through BPT), and then launch into GUI testing of complex webmethods Java web portals to take a business process through a series of screens, capture required data and test screen functionality, write all runtime data back to QC datasets, then call the data later in the BPT test to validate it across database checks using HP UFT API, build and execute SQL queries, and finally validate information for accounting purposes of data sitting on AS400 or payment databases.
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 features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."
"Record and Replay is the most used functionality for us, as we can record the test cases and play them on multiple combinations of platforms."
"At the moment, all our deploys depend on results of automation. If the tests are failing, then we know that something is wrong at the early stages of development."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"The screen shot portal is essential for an easy way to run tests across hundreds of browsers and retrieve screenshots which then indicate success or failure."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
More CrossBrowserTesting pros
"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
 

Cons

"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."
"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
More CrossBrowserTesting cons
"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."
"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
Information not available
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
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
23%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Government
12%
Real Estate/Law Firm
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting Logo
BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting
Compared 67% of the time
Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting
Compared 19% of the time
Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting Logo
Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting
Compared 13% of the time
More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors
No data available
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
CrossBrowserTesting
April 2025
CrossBrowserTesting reportDownload CrossBrowserTesting product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Business Processing Testing
March 2025
OpenText Business Processing Testing reportDownload OpenText Business Processing Testing product report
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Business Process Testing, Business Process Testing, HPE Business Process Testing
 

Overview

CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.

  • Native debugging tools make manual testing easy to inspect and correct HTML, CSS, and JavaScript errors on any browser.
  • Take automated screenshots across multiple browsers at once, then compare side-by-side against historical test runs.
SmartBear

OpenText Business Processing Testing (BPT) test framework software will help you move from one-off manual testing and ad hoc functional automated testing to an architected approach with a library of reusable test components. BPT accelerates the move to component-based testing with an integrated test framework approach to creating a repository of reusable test modules that allow for changes to be made once, then propagated across your distributed agile teams to all affected tests.

OpenText
 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Migros Bank AG
Buyer's Guide
CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing
February 2025
Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing 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.