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."Record and Replay is the most used functionality for us, as we can record the test cases and play them on multiple combinations of platforms."
"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."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"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."
"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."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"When I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."
"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 most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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 speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"The pricing could be improved."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
Earn 20 points
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.
