CrossBrowserTesting 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 CrossBrowserTesting and OpenText UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools 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
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes.""Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data.""The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA.""SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those.""Video recording of the script running in a cloud server.""The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive.""I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems.""I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."

More CrossBrowserTesting Pros →

"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency.""The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local.""The solution is very scalable.""One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly.""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 most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software.""The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application.""It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."

More OpenText UFT Developer Pros →

Cons
"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing.""It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish.""The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved.""I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on.""Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers.""I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same.""We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve.""Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."

More CrossBrowserTesting Cons →

"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated.""The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years.""The pricing could be improved.""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.""In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure.""The price of the solution could improve.""It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding.""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
  • "The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."
  • "A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
  • "CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
  • "It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
  • "SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
  • More CrossBrowserTesting 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
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    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
    27th
    Views
    1,418
    Comparisons
    1,053
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    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

    CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.

    • Native debugging tools make manual testing easy to inspect and correct HTML, CSS, and JavaScript errors on any browser.
    • Take automated screenshots across multiple browsers at once, then compare side-by-side against historical test runs.
    With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.
    Sample Customers
    St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
    Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm21%
    Healthcare Company14%
    Computer Software Company14%
    University7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company18%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Government9%
    Healthcare Company6%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Comms Service Provider12%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm22%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business35%
    Midsize Enterprise22%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise16%
    Large Enterprise62%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business5%
    Midsize Enterprise24%
    Large Enterprise71%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise76%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: March 2024.
    765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Sauce Labs, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive.

    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.