BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

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.
To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer Report (Updated: March 2024).
765,386 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
"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."

More BrowserStack Pros →

"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."

More OpenText UFT Developer Pros →

Cons
"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."

More BrowserStack Cons →

"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."

More OpenText UFT Developer 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."
  • More BrowserStack Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
  • "The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
  • "The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
  • "When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
  • "It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
  • "The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
  • "Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
  • "The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
  • More OpenText UFT Developer Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:With respect to pricing, they are a bit expensive. I would rate the licensing model a six out of ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap. So, the price could be a bit decreased.
    Top Answer:The issue with the product stems from the fact that when we try to do a single or multiple login on multiple browsers for simulation in scenarios where users use Chrome, Mozilla, and Edge, all… more »
    Top Answer:There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.
    Top Answer:The pricing is competitive. It is affordable and average.
    Top Answer:Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars.
    Ranking
    5th
    Views
    8,845
    Comparisons
    6,910
    Reviews
    12
    Average Words per Review
    353
    Rating
    7.9
    16th
    Views
    3,361
    Comparisons
    2,036
    Reviews
    2
    Average Words per Review
    452
    Rating
    8.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
    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.
    With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.
    Sample Customers
    Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
    Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company55%
    Financial Services Firm18%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Marketing Services Firm9%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company16%
    Financial Services Firm13%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Retailer7%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Comms Service Provider12%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm22%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business27%
    Midsize Enterprise27%
    Large Enterprise45%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business19%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise67%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business5%
    Midsize Enterprise24%
    Large Enterprise71%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise76%
    Buyer's Guide
    BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT Developer and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    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.