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

LambdaTest vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web 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
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (8th)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
18th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of LambdaTest is 4.5%, up from 4.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is 1.8%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
LambdaTest4.5%
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web1.8%
Other93.7%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

KK
Practice Specialist at a government with 1-10 employees
Cloud-based testing has simplified remote mobile validation and provides flexible device coverage
I was not impressed with how detailed their analytics and logs are from LambdaTest. The solution we were testing is being used because many of us are working from home. It was easy to implement because with a real phone, we have to bring a real phone to each person. Since three years ago, many employees have been working from home, so we were trying to find a solution for this challenge. We had no need to exploit the information for the analytics generated in the background. The purpose was simply to make it easy for our employees to access a phone. The downsides I noticed include that the pricing was very good, but the visual quality of the image sometimes suffers. The contrast on a real iPhone provides better contrast than with the cloud solution. The only aspect that was less favorable than on a real phone was the contrast of the color.
reviewer2356440 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Experienced ease in automation with strong support while seeking improvements in low-code options
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers flexibility of deployment, from on-premises to UFT One which is on the cloud. They provide capability for immediate deployment, and assets can be migrated easily. They include enablers specifically for quick migration of test assets. While I have not personally been involved in these migrations, I have observed some clients using it directly while others make a complete shift from OpenText to Tricentis platforms. There have not been many clients moving from OpenText platforms from on-premises to cloud because most shifts have been toward different product categories such as Tricentis altogether.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is very easy to understand and has a user-friendly UI."
"Without a doubt, LambdaTest is one of the big reasons behind our faster deployment and better team collaboration."
"The Docker tunnel integration for local testing can be extremely useful to run on multiple instances in parallel."
"In case something goes wrong at LambdaTest end, the Support team is extremely responsive to analyze any platform-related issues."
"Our test execution time was reduced to 16 mins from five hours when executed in parallel on multiple VMs. This has been extremely helpful!"
"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."
"ROI is definitely present with OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web; these are very capable tools, and there is no reason ROI should be a challenge."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
"The product is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
 

Cons

"The analytics over the automation dashboard can be more intuitive."
"The downsides I noticed include that the pricing was very good, but the visual quality of the image sometimes suffers."
"There is scope for improvement in service account usage, LDAP integration, and adapting new devices and features."
"LambdaTest needs to have native application testing, which would be a great help to my team."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"It would be much easier for us to read the test if they provided dashboard analytics."
"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
"Performing automation testing from UI is a little slow and could be improved."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
"OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web could benefit from implementing a low-code, no-code solution that aids in quick automation code preparation."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."
"Digital Lab is a pretty solid product with areas that could be continuously improved on."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This is an affordable product."
"It is free to start, which means you can actually see how it works and then take the decision to buy."
"It is affordable as compared to similar SaaS solutions."
"LambdaTest is paid per execution."
"The product can be described as an averagely-priced solution."
"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."
"From the customer side, LambdaTest is cheaper for big company usage and works fine as other similar applications."
"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
"The product could be more affordable."
"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Healthcare Company
7%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Non Profit
10%
Performing Arts
7%
 

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 Business4
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise13
 

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?
I was not impressed with how detailed their analytics and logs are from LambdaTest. The solution we were testing is being used because many of us are working from home. It was easy to implement bec...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
Digital Lab is a pretty solid product with areas that could be continuously improved on.
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
I deal with OpenText Analysis Database and Core Performance Engineering, which are categories of software rather than individual pieces. We focus on the ADM area, which includes ALM, UFT One, UFT D...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Bringmax, Totpal, Nethhouse, Integreplanner, Cognizant, Vendisol, Clearscale, Edureka
Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
Find out what your peers are saying about LambdaTest vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.