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 883,011 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

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

"I was really surprised by LambdaTest; it was a very good service and for the price, I think it is a very good solution."

"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."

"We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring."

"The UI is pretty clean and easy to navigate, and we were able to figure it out very quickly."

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

"Automation and mobile testing have improved our efficiency."

"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."

More LambdaTest pros

"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."

"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."

"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."

"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."

"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."

"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."

"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."

"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."

"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."

"The tool can improve its testing speed. Changing or switching to another mobile phone can be very slow on a real device."

"Sometimes, when multiple users use the tool simultaneously, it can slow down, affecting efficiency."

"The execution reporting can be improved for better integration between automation execution and accessibility platform reporting."

"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 will be an added benefit for us if LambdaTest implements this really soon."

More LambdaTest cons

"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."

"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."

"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."

"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."

"The initial setup is complex."

"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."

"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."

"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"It is free to start, which means you can actually see how it works and then take the decision to buy."

"LambdaTest is paid per execution."

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

"I used the product for free."

"It is 60% cheaper and there is no fuss in maintaining the lab, so we have more time to do the testing."

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

"This is an affordable product."

More LambdaTest pricing and cost advice

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

"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 tool's price is high."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"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."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"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."

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

883,011 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

22%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

Retailer

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 needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?

I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs LambdaTest

Compared 38% of the time

Sauce Labs vs LambdaTest

Compared 13% of the time

Perfecto vs LambdaTest

Compared 5% of the time

Applitools vs LambdaTest

Compared 3% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs LambdaTest

Compared 2% of the time

More LambdaTest Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 19% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% 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

February 2026

Download LambdaTest product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

February 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

883,011 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.