CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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 Digital Lab 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
"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.""CBT has made it easier to troubleshoot issues across devices when we do not have actual access to those specific devices. I even opt for CBT sometimes when we do have access to the device just because it is easier.""I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team.""It has increased the speed of our regression testing.""Video recording of the script running in a cloud server.""The screen shot portal is essential for an easy way to run tests across hundreds of browsers and retrieve screenshots which then indicate success or failure.""With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes.""The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."

More CrossBrowserTesting Pros →

"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time.""It is a complete solution for mobile application testing.""The product is easy to use.""The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization.""The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare.""There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Pros →

Cons
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up.""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.""The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default.""I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same.""Sometimes the testing is slow.""The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation.""This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices.""The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."

More CrossBrowserTesting Cons →

"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model.""I would like to see more integration with automation tools.""For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively.""We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it.""The documentation and user interface both need improvement.""We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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 →

  • "OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
  • "The product could be more affordable."
  • "While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
  • More OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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 numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps.
    Top Answer:I believe there's always room for improvement in various aspects. For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate… more »
    Top Answer:There are various use cases, each tailored to the specific needs of our customers. When we consider Application Lifecycle Management (ALM), the use case significantly differs from Unified Functional… more »
    Ranking
    27th
    Views
    1,418
    Comparisons
    1,053
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    20th
    Views
    789
    Comparisons
    546
    Reviews
    2
    Average Words per Review
    470
    Rating
    8.5
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center
    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.
    Our enterprise-level solution is a complete, centralized lab of real mobile devices and emulators. With remote access, developers and testers can develop, debug, test, monitor, and optimize mobile apps from anywhere.
    Sample Customers
    St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
    Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm21%
    Healthcare Company14%
    Computer Software Company14%
    University7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company18%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Government9%
    Healthcare Company6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company19%
    Energy/Utilities Company8%
    Retailer7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business35%
    Midsize Enterprise22%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise16%
    Large Enterprise62%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business25%
    Midsize Enterprise13%
    Large Enterprise63%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business11%
    Midsize Enterprise12%
    Large Enterprise77%
    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 Digital Lab is ranked 20th in Functional Testing Tools with 15 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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 Digital Lab writes "Robust solution for application lifecycle management with numerous valuable features". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Sauce Labs, whereas OpenText UFT Digital Lab is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Appium, AWS Device Farm, Perfecto and Sauce Labs.

    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.