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 the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"Maintenance of the solution is easy."
"The setup was quite simple. The website easily explains how to set it up and if you want to integrate it with BMP tools there are online simple step tutorials."
"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."
"The integration is very good."
"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."
"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"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."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."
"The solution is slow."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
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.