We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and OpenText UFT Developer 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."I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"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."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"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."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"The solution is slow."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."
"The pricing could be improved."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
BrowserStack is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 23 reviews while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "A user-friendly tool for performance testing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, CrossBrowserTesting and Bitbar, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive. See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer 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.