BrowserStack vs. OpenText UFT One

As per my experience, BrowserStack is more suited for those organizations that have a remote work culture and also for those who need multiple device testing. Also, it is beneficial for those organizations that do not want to spend more on physical devices, as the devices update frequently in the market. It is not appropriate for those organizations which have lesser need of multi- device testing as the subscription model may not be feasible for them. Also a small organization with less number of employees would not opt for BrowserStack as it would be costlier for them.

Incentivized

The tool has evolved to be the market leader in paid GUI testing, at last count, there are over a dozen add-ins (not including subtypes) that can be selected at startup based upon the technology of the application being tested. This includes the standard web types to new mobile applications. It can be plugged into your development tool of choice and reports the results to whatever level you desire.

Incentivized

• Test client website on 5x more platform.
• Provide a real device with features like media injection and Physical SIM testing for manual testing of a specific feature.
• Automate regression suite to execute parallel on multiple device.
• Provide an accessibility report for the website through automated scanning of the site using site.xml.

Incentivized

• Integration & Support: a) The way tool integrates with other platforms like .net, mainframe is amazing. It Supports new and legacy web technologies, terminal emulators, and Windows thick client applications. b) It Supports Continuous integration by integrating with Jenkins, Git etc. c) UFT supports cross browser testing & it supports all main browsers like IE, Firefox, Chrome and Apple Safari. d)It’s compatibility with ALM can help store automation execution results back in ALM & even allows us to schedule the automation execution at required date/time.
• Amazing Features: UFT has so many features but at the same time, it is quite easy to learn & it doesn’t take long to train staff on it. Few amazing features which adds lot of value while scripting are:
• a) Test Combinations Generator (TCG) - It helps to create test configurations by using the parameters in tests and their possible values to create multiple possible data combinations.
• b) Insight Recording – It recognizes controls based on their appearance and not their native properties. This can be useful to test controls from an environment that UFT does not support or even from a remote computer running a non-Windows operating system. When UFT runs the test or component, it recognizes the controls in the application by matching them to the images saved with each of the Insight test objects.
• c) UFT has built in reporting features as well as allowing for customized output files showing exactly where a test step failed along with the timestamp.
• UFT supports BPT (Business Process Testing), a component-based testing framework which provides strong and efficient platform to test complete business process manually and automatically combines manual and automation tests with less duplication and its component reusability feature makes the testing process very fast.
• It helps improving efficiency in regression testing and functional testing, in that we automate a lot of repeatable tasks.
• Organization doesn’t need to have a skilled coder to write a basic automation script with UFT.

Incentivized

• I wish it didn't time out so quickly. I often move back and forth between my native Mac OS system and browsers to BrowserStack for Windows browsers and it often times out so I have to start over.
• I am not sure why, but when I've been testing in BrowserStack for a long period of time - maybe over a couple of hours, it sometimes gets buggy and unresponsive or slow to respond. It makes it hard to tell if I'm experiencing an issue with the site I'm testing or if it's an issue with BrowserStack.
• If I'm wishing for the moon and stars, I'd ask for the ability to use BrowserStack to also test with JAWS screen reader. But I'm happy having NVDA.

• Various formats of reporting support should be possible. Right now UFT supports exporting reports in either HTML or PDF in short or detailed format. If exporting reports could be extended to Excel, CSV, XML, XSLT, MHT formats that would be greatly appreciated.
• They should improve performance. There will be performance degradation on the test environment due to long continuous executions of automation scripts which leads to inconsistency of results, a better way to resolve this problem should be addressed at some point.
• Consistency during execution should be maintained.

Incentivized

It's simply a must-have tool. As a designer, I have to ensure my work is at least functional in older browsers. I also have to ensure that, when I design for mobile devices, any differences between platforms aren't problematic. BrowserStack allows me to test my work in a fraction of the time, with a whole lot more accuracy.

So many options that it can be a little overwhelming, but the core functions are easy to find and use and it's usually not too hard to figure things out for the more complex tasks. Very easy to boot up a device and a specific browser from the dashboard to begin a manual website test.

Incentivized

The ui is clean but there are lots of setting snd options which one must be fully aware so it will aid him/her during scripting

Incentivized

I rated BrowserStack's availability a 10 because it is consistently reliable, with minimal to no downtime or unplanned outages. The platform is accessible whenever needed, ensuring uninterrupted testing. Its robust infrastructure and proactive monitoring ensure a seamless experience, allowing us to meet deadlines without delays caused by availability issues and all

The tests are fast considering the fact that they're Appium tests. I've seen tests reliably pass or fail when they're supposed to, with next to zero issues on the BrowserStack side of things. Tests launch only seconds after I kick off them off from my CLI.

Incentivized

I've not had much direct interaction with the BrowserStack support team. The help and community are great and we've not run into any issue that has really required us to reach out. I guess having a stable and easy to use system means you may never need to contact support.

Incentivized

HPE are quick to reply and it's possible to get through to the actual developers shuold the case warrent it. Their online system allows updates and tracking of all incedents raised.

Incentivized

Yes, it was online training on meet, and trainer looks like skilled and technical strong, he has covered end to end all the features and he has answers all the queries. because of this trainings we are able to implement it by our own in the organization, thank you for support and training.

Incentivized

It was a quick training from the support of browserstack, it was nice and easy to understand, thanks again for the support given by the team. and regularly I used to receive mails for training from support for any new feature they launch, I was able to spread same training to all my team and dev.

Incentivized

I rated the implementation satisfaction an 8 because while it went smoothly overall, there were some challenges during the initial learning phase and integration with existing tools. Key insights include the importance of providing sufficient training upfront and ensuring seamless integration with other systems to minimize disruptions and improve adoption speed.

We used LambdaTest, but ultimately it didn't work for us because it put us in a queue when we kicked off a testing job instead of starting immediately. Our continuous integration process is managed by Microsoft Azure DevOps, and the pipeline agents it provides have a 60-minute timeout. We need immediate tests instead of flipping a coin, which could cause a false positive failure due to timeouts.

UFT has the advantages of supporting different types of technologies. Different competitive tools were not able to support the wide range of technologies which UFT does. UFT has a strong history and has been ranked one among all the Test Automation tools for quite some time. There is a wide and strong community across the internet.

Incentivized

I may not be the best person to answer this as I am only using it for 1 department and at 1 site but will still try my best As far as Scalability for Devices for Mobile Automation is concerned, it gets a Solid 10, as the users can run cases on upto 10 device parallel and also have the best choices of devices to choose

Incentivized

• Browserstack improved our internal confidence level when it came to signing off on testing
• Browserstack improved the confidence level of our clients by decreasing the number of bugs found during PVT and providing an entry level opportunity for our clients to perform UAT using the same tools.

Incentivized

• Roi on uft takes time as licensing cost pretty high. I would say you will have to wait for atleast 2 years to see roi value
• Uft needs time to integrate into the current business as it has few limitations
• Uft can be right weight so it is easily installed on premise or used from cloud so it can be accessed from anywhere

Incentivized