Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

LambdaTest vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 27, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

LambdaTest
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of LambdaTest is 4.7%, up from 4.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.1%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.1%
LambdaTest4.7%
Other88.2%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

MJ
Head of QA at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
Cross-platform testing and faster execution enhance testing efficiency
Don't worry about anything. Just go for it. There will not be an issue, as far as you know what you are buying and how you want to use it. Go for it, the platform is good. I rate the solution eight out of ten due to some areas needing improvement. I rate the overall solution eight out of ten.
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"LambdaTest is easy to use, and the documentation provides all the needed information."
"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!"
"The technical support services are excellent."
"We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring."
"Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."
"LambdaTest offers geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"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."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
 

Cons

"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"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'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."
"It would be much easier for us to read the test if they provided dashboard analytics."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"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."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is affordable as compared to similar SaaS solutions."
"The tool is not cheap, but it is not expensive."
"The pricing for LambdaTest is affordable, and one of the reasons we implemented it."
"From the customer side, LambdaTest is cheaper for big company usage and works fine as other similar applications."
"LambdaTest is paid per execution."
"It is free to start, which means you can actually see how it works and then take the decision to buy."
"I used the product for free."
"The pricing could be made cheaper."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"The price is reasonable."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Healthcare Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise9
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise71
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about LambdaTest?
We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for LambdaTest?
The pricing of LambdaTest depends on the deal negotiated. It is cost-effective compared to competitors like BrowserStack ( /products/browserstack-reviews ) and Sauce Labs ( /products/sauce-labs-rev...
What needs improvement with LambdaTest?
The execution reporting can be improved for better integration between automation execution and accessibility platform reporting. There are specific use cases related to authentication and authoriz...
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Bringmax, Totpal, Nethhouse, Integreplanner, Cognizant, Vendisol, Clearscale, Edureka
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about LambdaTest vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.