We performed a comparison between LambdaTest and OpenText UFT One 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."Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"It's user-friendly and offers valuable features for testing, making it a reliable tool."
"The UI is pretty clean and easy to navigate, and we were able to figure it out very quickly."
"LambdaTest easily integrates with leading project management, bug tracking, and CI-CD tools like Jira, Asana, Jenkins, Circle CI, and more."
"We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring."
"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."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"I didn't like the solution's technical support and how they communicated and tried to fix the issues of customers like me."
"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."
"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
"You cannot perform native-app testing, as they offer simulation for web testing only."
"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."
"Mobile application testing would be helpful for us."
"It would be much easier for us to read the test if they provided dashboard analytics."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"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."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 21 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. LambdaTest is rated 8.8, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Technical support should be improved, though it has great documentation". 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, Tricentis Tosca and Perfecto, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite. See our LambdaTest vs. OpenText UFT One 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.
