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."The UI is pretty clean and easy to navigate, and we were able to figure it out very quickly."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"This product offers out-of-the-box geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"Without a doubt, LambdaTest is one of the big reasons behind our faster deployment and better team collaboration."
"The solution is very easy to understand and has a user-friendly UI."
"The Docker tunnel integration for local testing can be extremely useful to run on multiple instances in parallel."
"It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files."
"It's simple to set up."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"It is a stable solution."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"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."
"We get logged out of the devices if there is some inactivity."
"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."
"I think Lambdatest is a valuable tool for our team and things that have room for improvement would be mobile app testing, as it can be an important addition to the tool."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"I would like to see all of the features available in the freemium plan so that I can test them."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"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."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"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."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
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.
