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

LambdaTest vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 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
5th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
12th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
11th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of LambdaTest is 5.6%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.7%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Dinesh Saharan - PeerSpot reviewer
The tool reduces the manual effort needed and helps automate certain tasks for users
I won't be able to comment on what could be improved in the solution since I am not the one who handles LambdaTest. It is our company's IT team that takes care of LambdaTest. Improvements on a platform need to happen on a timely basis. If something is perfect, it doesn't mean that it doesn't need to improvise or improve, like in terms of adding new features. There should be some new features coming up or some performance improvisation over a period of time.
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring."
"The primary feature that has significantly improved our test execution times is automation."
"LambdaTest easily integrates with leading project management, bug tracking, and CI-CD tools like Jira, Asana, Jenkins, Circle CI, and more."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"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."
"The UI is pretty clean and easy to navigate, and we were able to figure it out very quickly."
"Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."
"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."
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."
"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints."
"I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"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."
 

Cons

"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"LambdaTest needs to have native application testing, which would be a great help to my team."
"Performing automation testing from UI is a little slow and could be improved."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"LambdaTest needs to improve its speed and memory because it takes a long time to load."
"I would like to see all of the features available in the freemium plan so that I can test them."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"The tool can improve its testing speed. Changing or switching to another mobile phone can be very slow on a real device."
"In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"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 tool could be a little easier."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"LambdaTest's pricing is cheaper than that of other similar platforms."
"LambdaTest is on the cloud, offers both free and paid plans which start at $19 USD per month."
"This is an affordable product."
"The tool is not cheap, but it is not expensive."
"LambdaTest is priced well, which is why we migrated to it."
"It is 60% cheaper and there is no fuss in maintaining the lab, so we have more time to do the testing."
"The pricing for LambdaTest is affordable, and one of the reasons we implemented it."
"The product can be described as an averagely-priced solution."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
15%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Retailer
7%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?
There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Bringmax, Totpal, Nethhouse, Integreplanner, Cognizant, Vendisol, Clearscale, Edureka
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about LambdaTest vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.