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

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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
29th
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 (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.3%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.1%, down from 8.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.1%
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
Other90.6%
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

"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."
"Aside from speeding up our processes, it also allowed us to tie in our automated test scenarios and integrate our reporting tools to make the entire process efficient and hassle free."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"Overall, this solution has proved useful to our organization, and with future improvements and the hopeful addition of devices, it will continue to be a tool we use daily."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"CrossBrowserTesting helps a lot with the responsive testing in different mobiles and browsers and has good tools for our testing like taking videos and screenshots."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
"It's a fine solution with good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of the tests, which saves us a lot of time, especially during the regression tests."
"For test automation, it helps to speed up the testing and to speed up the software delivery, especially for HPE UFT because you have lots of test automation tools."
"The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests."
"When compared with UFT and manual execution, we have definitely saved a lot of effort, somewhere in the range of 60 to 70 percent when compared with our efforts to manually test."
"The most valuable features are the API testing, the integration with DevOps and accessibility to people without a lot of technical skill."
"The approach to the automation test makes the test activities more interesting and improves the software quality."
 

Cons

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"The speed to connect to mobile devices needs improvement, and sometimes the connection fails."
"Automated testing could be improved."
"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."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up, as I still sometimes experience lag, which no one loves."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"The initial setup is complex."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"It's hard to install the license seat because the web-based GUI is not user friendly."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"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."
"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 pricing of the product is an issue."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"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.""
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,349 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

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 Enterprise74
 

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: September 2026.
913,349 professionals have used our research since 2012.