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

"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."
"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"CBT has made it easier to troubleshoot issues across devices when we do not have actual access to those specific devices. I even opt for CBT sometimes when we do have access to the device just because it is easier."
"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."
"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."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
 

Cons

"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"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."
"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"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."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"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 tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."
"Customer service is a big drawback. From my personal experience, after creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"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."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"The tool's price is high."
"It's an expensive solution."
"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."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"The price is reasonable."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
882,813 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
22%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
8%
Retailer
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.
882,813 professionals have used our research since 2012.