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

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

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
28th
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 August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.4%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.8%, down from 9.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.8%
CrossBrowserTesting1.4%
Other90.8%
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."
"Overall, the product does what we need and does it well."
"We no longer need to have a full QA team, testing is more quickly and reliably reproduced, and scheduled daily tests assist in catching any bugs which fall through the cracks and make it to the production environment."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"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 technical support is good."
"CrossBrowserTesting improved my organization because it eliminates the need for a physical device with a tester to cover our used browsers."
"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."
"The fact that it works with a vast number of technologies works for us because our internal customers use the tool for testing a lot of different applications."
"The fact that UFT One covers multiple technologies helps in terms of end-to-end scenarios."
"UFT is an expensive tool that can save you a lot of time and effort and provide great value for money if used correctly, but also turn out as ineffective related to value-for-money if used the wrong way."
"For the QTP/UFT projects I have worked on ROI is always over 300% in the long term."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"OpenText Functional Testing has an impressive ability to connect to mobile devices and its ability to test so many different types of software, whether it be mainframe, APIs, mobile, web, or desktop."
"I was able to reduce regression and functional test times by 80%."
 

Cons

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"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."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"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."
"The speed to connect to mobile devices needs improvement, and sometimes the connection fails."
"When debugging code in UFT, it would crash, freeze and hang a lot."
"I don't like this tool and I don't think that it's a successful example for automation."
"The solution is 70-80% stable. Stability really depends on the servers or the license which we have installed."
"Prior to the past three years, we saw a lot of issues with stability and a lot of patching and concern from our internal customers that they couldn't rely on the tool to always be there when they needed it."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased."
"Unfortunately, the issue was not resolved. I was told that the answer from the Micro Focus support team was not helpful."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"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."
"The tool's price is high."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"It's an expensive solution."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,745 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Performing Arts
6%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

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: June 2026.
908,745 professionals have used our research since 2012.