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."When I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"It was the perfect solution that saved us time and money to perform web viewing tests on real devices, which allowed our team to correct multiple failures in devices."
"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."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"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 ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"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."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"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."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"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."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"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."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 28th in Functional Testing Tools while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Automai AppVerify, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite. 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.
