We performed a comparison between LambdaTest and Sauce Labs based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Sauce Labs is the winner in this comparison. It is reliable, scalable, robust, and has excellent management features. In addition, Sauce Labs users report a significant ROI. LambdaTest does come out on top in the pricing category, however.
"The Docker tunnel integration for local testing can be extremely useful to run on multiple instances in parallel."
"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."
"This product offers out-of-the-box geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"It is a scalable solution."
"Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."
"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"LambdaTest easily integrates with leading project management, bug tracking, and CI-CD tools like Jira, Asana, Jenkins, Circle CI, and more."
"The real devices feature is the most valuable feature for us."
"The abundance of device, platform, and browser combinations/versions that can be used in parallel."
"Sauce Labs helps us identify the root causes of bugs. The solution offers a lot of flexibility by providing the latest iOS and Android emulator versions, and even the Appium updates when it comes out in the market."
"So far, the stability has proven to be quite good."
"The error logging is also very robust. If we run a test through Sauce Labs and there's some sort of issue, a log will appear on the screen. Log messages are usually heinous and horrible... Sauce Labs is incredibly good at saying things like, 'Hey, here is the exact issue. Fix this and you can run the test.' That helps in getting things up and running and executing the way they should."
"It provides a comprehensive selection of browsers and platform versions for our test automations and CI/CD pipeline process. It also provides a comprehensive set of virtual mobile devices, which we can configure for our automation and availability. These features are valuable for us when it comes to testing our applications. We have a website and mobile applications that we want to test and diversify to various browsers and mobile devices as well as restore various versions. This helps us to find bugs that users might be facing and correct them."
"Sauce Connect gave us ability to test an application that was hosted locally."
"Testing across multiple devices and environments is now possible to do quickly and effectively."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to easily test multiple browsers and versions, as well as off-loading our local environments using the SauceCloud."
"LambdaTest needs to have native application testing, which would be a great help to my team."
"It would be much easier for us to read the test if they provided dashboard analytics."
"Performing automation testing from UI is a little slow and could be improved."
"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."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"The scalability is good with Amazon, but IBM had some issues."
"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"The testing process is difficult. I need to prove the complete competency of the tool, and I am finding that challenging."
"Another feature that could still be improved on is more error clarity. Sometimes when running automated scripts the test will fail on the device side instead of the script and errors only show a 500 try again message instead of a detailed script that could of a been a timeout error from the code."
"We had some specific features that we opened tickets on, although they were not earth-shattering. For example, the way the menus scroll could be improved because it does not have a bar, the way that people are used to, where you can move up and down."
"If I had to speak of an area that could be improved it would probably have to be the speed of interaction with the devices. There is at times a considerable amount of lag while using some of the virtual and at times even physical device farm"
"On a rare occasion, I will come into a ticket where a customer will have reached out to me after reaching out to Sauce Labs, saying, "Sauce Labs doesn't understand what I am going through. They are not being very helpful." So, I try to do clean up there. Outside of those extremely rare occasions, I have only had one or two of those support issues."
"We have had some issues with the Sauce Connect Proxy on our Jenkins servers failing to start, which makes the optimal CI/CD pipeline come to a halt."
"Overall, I think Sauce Labs provides us with a valuable tool and resource. As far as what could be improved, I would say the overall test execution time. Some of the calls take a bit longer than I expect, for example in web browser tests; while the execution time isn't obnoxious, it could be improved so that overall tests/test suites finish faster."
"An image comparison would be a nice feature to include in the Sauce Labs product."
LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 19 reviews while Sauce Labs is ranked 11th in Functional Testing Tools with 113 reviews. LambdaTest is rated 9.0, while Sauce Labs is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Cost-effective, good integration, and parallel testing leads to good performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sauce Labs writes "Robust documentation, helpful support representative, good licensing model". LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, Perfecto and Bitbar, whereas Sauce Labs is most compared with BrowserStack, Perfecto, OpenText UFT One, Bitbar and Katalon Studio.
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.
