CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText UFT One 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 One 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).
765,234 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
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices.""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.""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.""CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing.""I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable.""The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA.""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.""The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."

More CrossBrowserTesting Pros →

"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code.""The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation.""It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback.""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.""The initial setup is relatively easy.""Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways.""The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP).""Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."

More OpenText UFT One 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.""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.""The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain.""I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same.""The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved.""Sometimes the testing is slow.""Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up.""This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."

More CrossBrowserTesting Cons →

"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact.""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.""We'd like it to have less scripting.""There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT.""Technical support could be improved.""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.""I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."

More OpenText UFT One 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 took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
  • "The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
  • "It's an expensive solution."
  • "For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
  • "The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
  • "The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
  • "The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
  • "The price is one aspect that could be improved."
  • More OpenText UFT One Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Top Answer:We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well… more »
    Top Answer:My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
    Top Answer:The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on… more »
    Ranking
    27th
    Views
    1,418
    Comparisons
    1,053
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    2nd
    Views
    11,757
    Comparisons
    7,234
    Reviews
    20
    Average Words per Review
    694
    Rating
    7.9
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    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 AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications. Read white paper
    Sample Customers
    St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
    Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
    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 Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business35%
    Midsize Enterprise22%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise16%
    Large Enterprise62%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise75%
    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.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    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.