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."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."
"Without a doubt, LambdaTest is one of the big reasons behind our faster deployment and better team collaboration."
"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."
"LambdaTest offers geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable features are that it's essentially on-demand, and you only focus on getting the code that needs to be executed without having to worry about the OS, hardware, etc."
"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."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"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 most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"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."
"LambdaTest needs to have native application testing, which would be a great help to my team."
"The analytics over the automation dashboard can be more intuitive."
"Load flow compared to other stacks 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."
"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."
"Mobile application testing will be an added benefit for us if LambdaTest implements this really soon."
"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 18 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.
