We performed a comparison between LambdaTest and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Without a doubt, LambdaTest is one of the big reasons behind our faster deployment and better team collaboration."
"We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring."
"The solution is very easy to understand and has a user-friendly UI."
"The slow nature of a cloud platform was compensated with parallel testing, and now we are able to finish our testing job faster than it was before COVID."
"The most valuable features are that it's essentially on-demand, and you only focus on getting the code that needs to be executed without having to worry about the OS, hardware, etc."
"Geolocation testing is as straightforward as ticking checkboxes of browsers, operating systems, and countries."
"The most valuable feature is the real-time testing, which helps you to test your website on more than two thousand combinations of browsers and operating systems."
"Our test execution time was reduced to 16 mins from five hours when executed in parallel on multiple VMs. This has been extremely helpful!"
"It is a stable solution."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"I didn't like the solution's technical support and how they communicated and tried to fix the issues of customers like me."
"Performing automation testing from UI is a little slow and could be improved."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"Mobile application testing will be an added benefit for us if LambdaTest implements this really soon."
"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
"The analytics over the automation dashboard can be more intuitive."
"Improvements on a platform need to happen on a timely basis...There should be some new features coming up or some performance improvisation over a period of time."
"Mobile application testing would be helpful for us."
"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."
"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."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"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."
"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."
LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 22 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. LambdaTest is rated 8.8, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Technical support should be improved, though it has great documentation". 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". LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and Perfecto, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite. See our LambdaTest vs. OpenText UFT One report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation 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.
