BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
BrowserStack Logo
8,670 views|6,779 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
776 views|525 comparisons
81% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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.
To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab Report (Updated: March 2024).
769,599 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.""I've worked on testing integrations with BrowserStack, particularly with a platform called IT. This involves testing the registration process, including receiving verification codes on devices and phones. BrowserStack has been excellent for testing these integrations, providing a seamless workflow development experience.""We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices.""The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing.""The most valuable feature is that it provides parallel and cross-browser testing. It enables us to run tests on multiple browsers or devices simultaneously.""The main core concept behind this product is, it takes the overhead of maintaining all of your devices or particular computers. It continuously adds the latest devices that are coming into the market.""The setup was quite simple. The website easily explains how to set it up and if you want to integrate it with BMP tools there are online simple step tutorials.""The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."

More BrowserStack Pros →

"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing.""For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.""The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time.""The product is easy to use.""The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare.""There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps.""The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Pros →

Cons
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally.""Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience.""BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster.""I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms.""While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA.""I would like to see clearer visibility.""I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product.""Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."

More BrowserStack Cons →

"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing.""We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it.""The documentation and user interface both need improvement.""For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively.""I would like to see more integration with automation tools.""They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model.""We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "This solution costs less than competing products."
  • "The price is fine."
  • "There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."
  • "BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
  • "The price of BrowserStack is high."
  • "Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
  • "My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."
  • "As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
  • More BrowserStack Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
  • "The product could be more affordable."
  • "While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
  • More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    769,599 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.
    Top Answer:My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses.
    Top Answer:I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product. Accessibility testing is an area of concern where improvements are required.
    Top Answer:For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.
    Top Answer:The desktop applications have performance issues since they don't work properly or don't detect objects properly, making it in an area where improvements are required. The product's object detection… more »
    Top Answer:I use the solution in my company to test desktop applications.
    Ranking
    4th
    Views
    8,670
    Comparisons
    6,779
    Reviews
    14
    Average Words per Review
    372
    Rating
    8.0
    21st
    Views
    776
    Comparisons
    525
    Reviews
    3
    Average Words per Review
    398
    Rating
    8.3
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center
    Learn More
    Overview
    BrowserStack is a cloud-based cross-browser testing tool that enables developers to test their websites across various browserson different operating systems and mobile devices, without requiring users to install virtual machines, devices or emulators.
    Our enterprise-level solution is a complete, centralized lab of real mobile devices and emulators. With remote access, developers and testers can develop, debug, test, monitor, and optimize mobile apps from anywhere.
    Sample Customers
    Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
    Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company55%
    Financial Services Firm18%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Marketing Services Firm9%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company16%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Retailer7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm20%
    Computer Software Company18%
    Energy/Utilities Company8%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business30%
    Midsize Enterprise26%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise67%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business24%
    Midsize Enterprise12%
    Large Enterprise65%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business11%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise80%
    Buyer's Guide
    BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    769,599 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 16 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Digital Lab writes "Robust solution for application lifecycle management with numerous valuable features". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, Tricentis Tosca and Bitbar, whereas OpenText UFT Digital Lab is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Appium, Perfecto, AWS Device Farm and Sauce Labs. See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab report.

    See our list of best Functional 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.