LambdaTest vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

LambdaTest and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. LambdaTest is ranked #6 with an average rating of 7.7, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 7.8. LambdaTest holds a 4.5% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 6.4% mindshare. Additionally, 96% of LambdaTest users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

LambdaTest

Read 28 LambdaTest reviews

2,889 Views
2,485 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,163 Views
5,714 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

LambdaTest

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 27, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and LambdaTest are two competing products in the functional and automation testing category, each addressing different user needs. OpenText Functional Testing seems to have the upper hand due to its robust automation capabilities, despite some performance issues, while LambdaTest is praised for its affordability and scalability.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing supports GUI, API, and database testing, with strong object recognition and integration with ALM. It also offers built-in test frameworks like BPT. LambdaTest provides cross-browser testing with real-time browser access, geolocation testing, and integration with CI/CD tools, which are essential for enhancing testing scalability and efficiency.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could enhance its performance and browser compatibility, as well as improve its stability on non-Windows platforms. LambdaTest users seek advancements in mobile application testing, request faster execution speeds, and desire more detailed analytics.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is deployed on-premises, requiring more IT resources but offering greater environment control, with customer service that is knowledgeable yet noted for slow responses. LambdaTest's cloud deployment makes it more flexible for teams with distributed workforces, with customer service recognized for fast, reliable support despite some areas needing refinement.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is a premium solution, with significant licensing costs that may be a barrier for small teams, but it yields positive ROI through enhanced automation capabilities. LambdaTest offers a more accessible pricing model, with flexible plans suited for various budgets, offering transparent pricing and providing significant value for teams focusing on cross-platform testing.

To learn more, read our detailed LambdaTest vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

LambdaTest vs. OpenText Functional Testing

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,733 peers since 2012

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

8th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

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

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th)

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 is 6.4%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	6.4%
LambdaTest	4.5%
Other	89.1%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Karine Kirche

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.

Read full review

Kevin Copple

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"LambdaTest easily integrates with leading project management, bug tracking, and CI-CD tools like Jira, Asana, Jenkins, Circle CI, and more."

"The Docker tunnel integration for local testing can be extremely useful to run on multiple instances in parallel."

"LambdaTest offers geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"

"LambdaTest is easy to use, and the documentation provides all the needed information."

"LambdaTest supports multiple platforms like iOS across different devices and enables real-time testing."

"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 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."

"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."

More LambdaTest pros

"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."

"It is a stable solution."

"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."

"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."

"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."

"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."

"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."

"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"The downsides I noticed include that the pricing was very good, but the visual quality of the image sometimes suffers."

"It would be much easier for us to read the test if they provided dashboard analytics."

"Mobile application testing would be helpful for us."

"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."

"Improvements on a platform need to happen on a timely basis...There should be some new features coming up or some performance improvisation over a period of time."

"I would like to see all of the features available in the freemium plan so that I can test them."

"Their smart testing module needs improvement."

More LambdaTest cons

"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."

"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."

"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."

"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."

"The user interface could be improved"

"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool is not cheap, but it is not expensive."

"From the customer side, LambdaTest is cheaper for big company usage and works fine as other similar applications."

"LambdaTest's pricing is cheaper than that of other similar platforms."

"The product can be described as an averagely-priced solution."

"LambdaTest is on the cloud, offers both free and paid plans which start at $19 USD per month."

"This is an affordable product."

"LambdaTest is paid per execution."

"It is affordable as compared to similar SaaS solutions."

More LambdaTest pricing and cost advice

"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 price is reasonable."

"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"The tool's price is high."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

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

Healthcare Company

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	10
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	9

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	71

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about LambdaTest?

We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with LambdaTest?

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs LambdaTest

Compared 42% of the time

Sauce Labs vs LambdaTest

Compared 14% of the time

Perfecto vs LambdaTest

Compared 5% of the time

QA Wolf vs LambdaTest

Compared 3% of the time

Bitbar vs LambdaTest

Compared 3% of the time

More LambdaTest Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 18% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

LambdaTest

January 2026

Download LambdaTest product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

January 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

Overview

LambdaTest offers real-time and automated testing across extensive browser and OS combinations with integrations like Jenkins and GitLab. It combines legacy and real device access for diverse compatibility, enhancing functionality and execution speed with HyperExecute and Docker tunneling.

Geared for businesses requiring robust browser compatibility, LambdaTest simplifies large-scale testing needs with seamless integration into CI/CD pipelines. Its automation features and parallel testing capabilities help detect UI misalignments quickly while reducing manual efforts. LambdaTest supports cross-browser functionality with comprehensive documentation and platform fusions like AWS for enhanced utility.

What key features make LambdaTest indispensable?

Intuitive Interface: Streamlines user experience.
Real-Time Testing: Thousands of browser and OS combinations available.
Tool Integration: Compatible with Jenkins and GitLab.
Automation and Parallel Testing: Efficient test cycles and process streamlining.
Legacy and Real Device Access: Ensures broad compatibility.
HyperExecute: Boosts execution speed significantly.
Docker Tunnel: Enables local testing with ease.

What benefits should users consider in reviews?

Comprehensive Documentation: Ensures ease of use and knowledge sharing.
Enhanced Performance: Fusions with platforms like AWS offer improved efficiency.
Global User Compatibility: Reduces manual testing, boosts customer experience.
CI/CD Integration: Consistent performance across teams.
Efficient Resource Utilization: Lowered manual testing efforts and cost efficiency.

In industries demanding high browser compatibility and web responsiveness, teams integrate LambdaTest for automation, real-time testing, and maintaining global user experience standards. Its use in parallel testing cycles alongside industry-driven integrations minimizes timelines and optimizes workflows effectively.

LambdaTest

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Bringmax, Totpal, Nethhouse, Integreplanner, Cognizant, Vendisol, Clearscale, Edureka

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

LambdaTest vs. OpenText Functional Testing

January 2026

Free Report: LambdaTest vs. OpenText Functional Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about LambdaTest vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our LambdaTest vs. OpenText Functional Testing 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.