We performed a comparison between LambdaTest and OpenText Business Processing Testing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Our test execution time was reduced to 16 mins from five hours when executed in parallel on multiple VMs. This has been extremely helpful!"
"Geolocation testing is as straightforward as ticking checkboxes of browsers, operating systems, and countries."
"Without a doubt, LambdaTest is one of the big reasons behind our faster deployment and better team collaboration."
"The Docker tunnel integration for local testing can be extremely useful to run on multiple instances in parallel."
"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."
"LambdaTest offers geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"The most valuable feature is the real-time testing, which helps you to test your website on more than two thousand combinations of browsers and operating systems."
"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
"You cannot perform native-app testing, as they offer simulation for web testing only."
"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'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."
"It would be much easier for us to read the test if they provided dashboard analytics."
"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."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."
"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."
Earn 20 points
LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 18 reviews while OpenText Business Processing Testing is ranked 37th in Functional Testing Tools. LambdaTest is rated 9.0, while OpenText Business Processing Testing is rated 7.8. 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 OpenText Business Processing Testing writes "Excellent usability, but the solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with their ALM tool". LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Katalon Studio, Perfecto and Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText Business Processing Testing is most compared with .
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.
