We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Functional Tester and LambdaTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"Geolocation testing is as straightforward as ticking checkboxes of browsers, operating systems, and countries."
"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 Docker tunnel integration for local testing can be extremely useful to run on multiple instances in parallel."
"Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"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."
"LambdaTest easily integrates with leading project management, bug tracking, and CI-CD tools like Jira, Asana, Jenkins, Circle CI, and more."
"Without a doubt, LambdaTest is one of the big reasons behind our faster deployment and better team collaboration."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"I would like to see all of the features available in the freemium plan so that I can test them."
"It would be much easier for us to read the test if they provided dashboard analytics."
"The scalability is good with Amazon, but IBM had some issues."
"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
"Mobile application testing will be an added benefit for us if LambdaTest implements this really soon."
"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"The analytics over the automation dashboard can be more intuitive."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 18 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.2, while LambdaTest is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Cost-effective, good integration, and parallel testing leads to good performance". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Katalon Studio, Selenium HQ, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca and Worksoft Certify, whereas LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Katalon Studio, Perfecto and Tricentis Tosca.
See our list of best Functional Testing 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.
