We performed a comparison between BrowserStack 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."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 most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"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."
"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"Maintenance of the solution is easy."
"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"Sometimes BrowserStack is really slow and devices are not loading. it is really annoying and that's why we bought several newer devices because sometimes it's affecting us a lot."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. 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 One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, Tricentis Tosca and HeadSpin, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite. See our BrowserStack 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.