CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText UFT One comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #28, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.1. SmartBear holds a 0.7% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 10.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

589 Views
449 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

Read 95 OpenText UFT One reviews

7,140 Views
4,477 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

OpenText UFT One

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT One and CrossBrowserTesting are competing products in the field of software testing tools. CrossBrowserTesting tends to be favored for its comprehensive features, despite the advantages UFT One holds in areas like pricing and support.

Features: OpenText UFT One is adept in automation capabilities that support various technologies and integrate efficiently with other OpenText products. Its specialties include robust GUI testing, extensive API testing, and compatibility with a wide range of platforms. CrossBrowserTesting excels in cross-browser testing abilities, offering extensive support for different operating systems and devices. It features live testing on real devices, supports automated script execution, and integrates with popular tools like Selenium.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One could improve in areas such as expanding its mobile testing capabilities, reducing deployment complexity, and enhancing cross-platform integration for non-Windows environments. CrossBrowserTesting can work on improving its pricing model to offer more affordable solutions, enhancing the speed and performance of their virtual testing environments, and expanding support for automation frameworks beyond Selenium.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One offers a more traditional deployment model, providing comprehensive service and strong integration support. CrossBrowserTesting, on the other hand, provides cloud-based solutions focusing on versatile accessibility and straightforward setup. CrossBrowserTesting has an edge in simplicity and flexibility in deployment, but UFT One ensures a structured deployment with comprehensive service support.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One is competitively priced with predictable costs, offering good ROI through its reliable automation features and integration capabilities. CrossBrowserTesting, perceived to be more expensive, delivers value through unique testing environments and scalability. It presents a higher initial investment but justifies it through extensive testing options, yielding a favorable ROI for diverse testing scenarios.

To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One Report (Updated: February 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One

February 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 844,944 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

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText UFT One

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)

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 UFT One is 10.1%, up from 9.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Michael Hutchison

Web Specialist at Mayo Clinic

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

Don Ingerson

QA Automation Engineer at Global Fortune 500 Company

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.

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 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."

"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."

"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."

"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."

"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."

"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."

"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."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"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 OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."

"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."

"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."

"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."

"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."

"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."

"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."

More OpenText UFT One pros

Cons

"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."

"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."

"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."

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."

"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."

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."

"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."

"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."

"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."

"The solution is expensive."

"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."

"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."

"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."

"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."

More OpenText UFT One cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."

"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."

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"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 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."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"The tool's price is high."

More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice

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

844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

25%

Financial Services Firm

20%

Government

11%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Financial Services Firm

19%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 78% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 22% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 11% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

March 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

March 2025

Download OpenText UFT One product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

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

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

OpenText

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

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One

February 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.