We performed a comparison between LambdaTest and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"The Docker tunnel integration for local testing can be extremely useful to run on multiple instances in parallel."
"This product offers out-of-the-box geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"Without a doubt, LambdaTest is one of the big reasons behind our faster deployment and better team collaboration."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Geolocation testing is as straightforward as ticking checkboxes of browsers, operating systems, and countries."
"The UI is pretty clean and easy to navigate, and we were able to figure it out very quickly."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"It is a stable solution."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"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."
"I would like to see all of the features available in the freemium plan so that I can test them."
"The scalability is good with Amazon, but IBM had some issues."
"Mobile application testing will be an added benefit for us if LambdaTest implements this really soon."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"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 much easier for us to read the test if they provided dashboard analytics."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"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."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
LambdaTest is ranked 15th in Test Automation Tools with 18 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews. LambdaTest is rated 9.0, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. 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 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, Katalon Studio, Perfecto and Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Ranorex Studio. See our LambdaTest vs. OpenText UFT One report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors and best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
