Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

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 8.3. SmartBear holds a 0.9% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 9.5% 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
  • 850 Views
  • 669 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
OpenText UFT One
Read 93 OpenText UFT One reviews
  • 8,465 Views
  • 5,308 Comparison Views
88% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive Summary
We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One Report (Updated: November 2024).
Buyer's Guide
CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One
November 2024
Download the complete report
Helped 816,406 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:
 

Scalability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText UFT One offers scalability and flexibility, though users note speed and browser issues; licensing affects usage costs.
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the CrossBrowserTesting report
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
 

Valuable Features

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
8.5
OpenText UFT One excels in cross-platform compatibility, versatile scripting, and efficient automation for desktop, web, and mobile testing.
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the CrossBrowserTesting report
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
 

Room For Improvement

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
5.5
OpenText UFT One needs better object identification, browser compatibility, AI, integration, and interface, with concerns on cost and stability.
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the CrossBrowserTesting report
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
 

Stability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
8.1
OpenText UFT One's stability is generally reliable but varies with system requirements and can be affected by version changes.
 

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
OpenText customer service is praised for responsiveness, though experiences vary, with mixed satisfaction levels and reliance on partners for support.
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the CrossBrowserTesting report
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
OpenText UFT One is praised for robust automation but criticized for high costs and complex licensing options.
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the CrossBrowserTesting report
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
 

Categories and Ranking

CrossBrowserTesting
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
28th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
93
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 November 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.9%, down from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 9.5%, down from 9.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Michael Hutchison - PeerSpot reviewer
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 - PeerSpot reviewer
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
report
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
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
24%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
9%
Educational Organization
7%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
 

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?
The solution should have additional features, but not much. It already has some sort of artificial intelligence that must be developed. It needs to be in trend. The solution needs better marketing,...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting Logo
BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting
Compared 54% of the time
Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting
Compared 22% of the time
Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting Logo
Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting
Compared 13% of the time
Bitbar vs CrossBrowserTesting Logo
Bitbar vs CrossBrowserTesting
Compared 12% of the time
More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 31% of the time
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One Logo
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 11% of the time
Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 10% of the time
UiPath Test Suite vs OpenText UFT One Logo
UiPath Test Suite vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 8% of the time
SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One Logo
SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 6% of the time
More OpenText UFT One Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
CrossBrowserTesting
November 2024
CrossBrowserTesting reportDownload CrossBrowserTesting product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT One
November 2024
OpenText UFT One reportDownload OpenText UFT One product report
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
 

Learn More

SmartBear
OpenText
 

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.
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
 

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
November 2024
Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: November 2024.
DOWNLOAD NOW
816,406 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.