We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and OpenText Business Processing Testing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."I like that it offers full device capability."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"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 most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"Customer support could be better. We tried to implement and explore this product with the vendor or reseller's help, but we haven't had any good response about the product."
"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."
"One of the biggest issues with BrowserStack is that if you don't have your network set up by the book, it's hard to get it to work with local desk machines."
"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."
"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."
Earn 20 points
BrowserStack is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while OpenText Business Processing Testing is ranked 37th in Functional Testing Tools. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while OpenText Business Processing Testing is rated 7.8. 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 Business Processing Testing writes "Excellent usability, but the solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with their ALM tool". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, CrossBrowserTesting and Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText Business Processing Testing is most compared with .
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.
