No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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
27th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (4th), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.4%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.2%, down from 9.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.2%
CrossBrowserTesting1.4%
Other91.4%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CN
Senior DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Knowledgeable support, scalable, and stable
We use CrossBrowserTesting for testing our web-based applications We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve. I have used CrossBrowserTesting within the past 12 months. CrossBrowserTesting is stable. I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable.…
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We would not be able to provide our services without their tools."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"It helps to speed up the process to test the product in different devices and browsers, making it easy to troubleshoot some issues."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"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."
"When I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is that it gives us real OS devices that are available to test, and we don't have to ensure that all of the devices are up to date."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"A key benefit, obviously, is in terms of effort savings that we have achieved using UFT."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"Our current project features more than a 1000 manual test cases, which took several days and resources to execute, and now the suite executes in six hours and less than two when run on multiple machines."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"Its ease-of-use; it doesn’t take long to train staff on it, and our third-party script developers find it easy to up-skill staff to use UFT."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
 

Cons

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up, as I still sometimes experience lag, which no one loves."
"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."
"Automated testing could be improved."
"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."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"I had some problems with the local connection, but there is someone that can help us always on customer support chat."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"When debugging code in UFT, it would crash, freeze and hang a lot."
"Stability can be an issue, and the weaker the resources on the machine running UFT the more likely there will be problems."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"The initial setup is complex."
"I’d like to see them improve the number of objects recognized without customization, similar to TestComplete by SmartBear."
"Technical support could be improved."
 

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."
"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."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"It's an expensive solution."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"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."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"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."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
899,052 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
6%
Construction Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise73
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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 needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: May 2026.
899,052 professionals have used our research since 2012.