We performed a comparison between Digital.ai Continuous Testing and LambdaTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
"Experitest is one of the only companies to offer a real device on the cloud to perform testing. They also provide quality documentations that help you navigate and maximize the solution."
"The UI is pretty clean and easy to navigate, and we were able to figure it out very quickly."
"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."
"LambdaTest easily integrates with leading project management, bug tracking, and CI-CD tools like Jira, Asana, Jenkins, Circle CI, and more."
"Our test execution time was reduced to 16 mins from five hours when executed in parallel on multiple VMs. This has been extremely helpful!"
"This product offers out-of-the-box geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"In case something goes wrong at LambdaTest end, the Support team is extremely responsive to analyze any platform-related issues."
"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"I would also like to see more videos and descriptions that could make installation more efficient."
"I have been automating tests for many years on many things but not on mobile devices. The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before. I spent the first two weeks just getting it started. It would be good to have some video explanation of how to use it on your devices and get started. Their online documentation is quite good and extensive, but it would be quite good to have some end-to-end examples demonstrated."
"I've also had some issues with the speed of certain API calls and the rendering of data. For example, when I'm onboarding data, the process can be slow."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."
"Performing automation testing from UI is a little slow and could be improved."
"You cannot perform native-app testing, as they offer simulation for web testing only."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"I didn't like the solution's technical support and how they communicated and tried to fix the issues of customers like me."
"Mobile application testing would be helpful for us."
More Digital.ai Continuous Testing Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Digital.ai Continuous Testing is ranked 28th in Test Automation Tools while LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Test Automation Tools with 21 reviews. Digital.ai Continuous Testing is rated 6.6, while LambdaTest is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Digital.ai Continuous Testing writes "Useful for running tests on many different types of real devices but requires some end-to-end video examples to get started quickly". On the other hand, the top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Technical support should be improved, though it has great documentation". Digital.ai Continuous Testing is most compared with Perfecto, Tricentis Tosca, Sauce Labs and Katalon Studio, whereas LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Katalon Studio and Tricentis Tosca. See our Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. LambdaTest report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
