We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"At the moment, all our deploys depend on results of automation. If the tests are failing, then we know that something is wrong at the early stages of development."
"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"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."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."
"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."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"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."
"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"Technical support could be improved."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"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."
"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."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. 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 One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Sauce Labs, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite.
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.