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."
"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 integration is very good."
"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."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"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."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"It is a stable solution."
"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."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"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."
"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"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."
"We had some execution issues."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"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."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
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 Ranorex Studio. 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.
