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

LambdaTest vs OpenText UFT One comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

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
7th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
8th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
95
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of LambdaTest is 5.1%, up from 5.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 10.1%, up from 9.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Andrew Rorat - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical support should be improved, though it has great documentation
We had a regression run every two weeks. During every regression testing, we had similar issues from LambdaTest's side, which was a huge problem for our tests, stability, and productivity. I had to call them every two weeks and spend two to four hours on one call to understand why this happened. The LambdaTest engineer we communicated with decided that he didn't need to fix this issue. So, I had to create a workaround from my side. This was the biggest issue I faced with the solution.
Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results
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. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.

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."
"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"LambdaTest easily integrates with leading project management, bug tracking, and CI-CD tools like Jira, Asana, Jenkins, Circle CI, and more."
"The technical support services are excellent."
"The UI is pretty clean and easy to navigate, and we were able to figure it out very quickly."
"Geolocation testing is as straightforward as ticking checkboxes of browsers, operating systems, and countries."
"The real devices feature is the most valuable feature for us."
"LambdaTest supports multiple platforms like iOS across different devices and enables real-time testing."
"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 best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
 

Cons

"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"The scalability is good with Amazon, but IBM had some issues."
"You cannot perform native-app testing, as they offer simulation for web testing only."
"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"Mobile application testing will be an added benefit for us if LambdaTest implements this really soon."
"I think Lambdatest is a valuable tool for our team and things that have room for improvement would be mobile app testing, as it can be an important addition to the tool."
"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."
"UFT still requires some coding."
"Technical support could be improved."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"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."
"The user interface could be improved"
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is 60% cheaper and there is no fuss in maintaining the lab, so we have more time to do the testing."
"I used the product for free."
"It is free to start, which means you can actually see how it works and then take the decision to buy."
"The pricing for LambdaTest is affordable, and one of the reasons we implemented it."
"LambdaTest's pricing is cheaper than that of other similar platforms."
"The product can be described as an averagely-priced solution."
"LambdaTest is priced well, which is why we migrated to it."
"LambdaTest is paid per execution."
"The tool's price is high."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"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 solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"It's an expensive solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
39%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Retailer
5%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
 

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?
I am not responsible for the payments, but from what I hear, it costs about $30,000 a month, which is quite expensive.
What needs improvement with LambdaTest?
LambdaTest ( /products/lambdatest-reviews ) needs to improve its speed and memory because it takes a long time to load. The ease of installation is also an issue; they need to open up a few things ...
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?
UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...
 

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 UFT One and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.