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."Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The real devices feature is the most valuable feature for us."
"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!"
"LambdaTest easily integrates with leading project management, bug tracking, and CI-CD tools like Jira, Asana, Jenkins, Circle CI, and more."
"Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."
"In case something goes wrong at LambdaTest end, the Support team is extremely responsive to analyze any platform-related issues."
"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"This product offers out-of-the-box geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"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."
"Mobile application testing would be helpful for us."
"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"LambdaTest needs to have native application testing, which would be a great help to my team."
"It would be much easier for us to read the test if they provided dashboard analytics."
"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."
"The scalability is good with Amazon, but IBM had some issues."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 22nd 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, Tricentis Tosca, HCL OneTest, Selenium HQ 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.
