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."LambdaTest is easy to use, and the documentation provides all the needed information."
"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."
"Our test execution time was reduced to 16 mins from five hours when executed in parallel on multiple VMs. This has been extremely helpful!"
"The real devices feature is the most valuable feature for us."
"The Docker tunnel integration for local testing can be extremely useful to run on multiple instances in parallel."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"Geolocation testing is as straightforward as ticking checkboxes of browsers, operating systems, and countries."
"Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"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."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"I would like to see all of the features available in the freemium plan so that I can test them."
"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"Mobile application testing would be helpful for us."
"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."
"I didn't like the solution's technical support and how they communicated and tried to fix the issues of customers like me."
"It would be much easier for us to read the test if they provided dashboard analytics."
"LambdaTest needs to have native application testing, which would be a great help to my team."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"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'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
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.