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 882,813 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 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 support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."

"It's user-friendly and offers valuable features for testing, making it a reliable tool."

"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 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."

More LambdaTest pros

"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."

"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."

"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."

"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

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

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."

"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

Cons

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

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

"I've also had some issues with the speed of certain API calls and the rendering of data. For example, when I'm onboarding data, the process can be slow."

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

"Performing automation testing from UI is a little slow and could be improved."

"We get logged out of the devices if there is some inactivity."

"I didn't like the solution's technical support and how they communicated and tried to fix the issues of customers like me."

"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."

More LambdaTest cons

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."

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

"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."

"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 scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."

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

"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing for LambdaTest is affordable, and one of the reasons we implemented it."

"LambdaTest is paid per execution."

"LambdaTest is priced well, which is why we migrated to it."

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

"The pricing could be made cheaper."

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

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

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

More LambdaTest pricing and cost advice

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

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

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

"It's an expensive solution."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"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."

"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""

"The tool's price is high."

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

882,813 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

SeleniumBox (SBOX) 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

882,813 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.