We performed a comparison between LambdaTest and OpenText UFT Developer 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 offers 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."
"It is a scalable solution."
"In case something goes wrong at LambdaTest end, the Support team is extremely responsive to analyze any platform-related issues."
"This product offers out-of-the-box geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"LambdaTest easily integrates with leading project management, bug tracking, and CI-CD tools like Jira, Asana, Jenkins, Circle CI, and more."
"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."
"Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."
"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"You cannot perform native-app testing, as they offer simulation for web testing only."
"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."
"The scalability is good with Amazon, but IBM had some issues."
"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."
"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 would like to see all of the features available in the freemium plan so that I can test them."
"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."
"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."
"The pricing could be improved."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."
LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 17 reviews while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. LambdaTest is rated 9.0, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. 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 UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Katalon Studio, Perfecto and Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive. See our LambdaTest vs. OpenText UFT Developer 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.