CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText UFT One comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #26, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.2. SmartBear holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 9.8% 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

667 Views
525 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

Read 95 OpenText UFT One reviews

7,393 Views
4,616 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 838,713 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

26th

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 (2nd), API Testing Tools (4th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.8%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 9.8%, up from 9.5% 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

"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."

"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."

"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."

"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."

"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 ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."

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

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."

"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."

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

"It is a stable solution."

"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."

"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."

"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."

"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."

More OpenText UFT One pros

Cons

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

"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."

"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."

"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."

"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."

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

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."

"Technical support could be improved."

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."

"The initial setup is complex."

"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."

"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."

"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."

More OpenText UFT One cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

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

"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."

"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"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.""

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

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

838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

25%

Financial Services Firm

18%

Government

11%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Financial Services Firm

19%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Energy/Utilities Company

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 60% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 17% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 12% of the time

Bitbar vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 11% 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 Suite vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 6% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

February 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

February 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

838,713 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.