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."
"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"It just added some flexibility. There was nothing that improved our coding standards, etc. because all of our UIs were functional before we tried it."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution."
"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"It is a stable solution."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."
"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."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"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 to see clearer visibility."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"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 am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"The solution is expensive."
"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."
BrowserStack is ranked 5th 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, CrossBrowserTesting and Eggplant Test, 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.
