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

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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
26th
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
4th
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 (5th), Test Automation Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.5%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 6.4%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing6.4%
CrossBrowserTesting1.5%
Other92.1%
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

"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"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 ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
 

Cons

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"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."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"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."
"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."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"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."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"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.""
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
882,333 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Educational Organization
9%
Performing Arts
9%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
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 Enterprise71
 

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: January 2026.
882,333 professionals have used our research since 2012.