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 882,333 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

"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 primary feature that has significantly improved our test execution times is automation."

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

"Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."

"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."

"The solution is very easy to understand and has a user-friendly UI."

"The technical support services are excellent."

"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

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

"The stop automation is a great feature."

"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."

"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."

"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."

"It offers a wide range of testing."

"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."

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

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."

"There is scope for improvement in service account usage, LDAP integration, and adapting new devices and features."

"LambdaTest needs to improve its speed and memory because it takes a long time to load."

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

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

"Mobile application testing would be helpful for us."

"The analytics over the automation dashboard can be more intuitive."

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

More LambdaTest cons

"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."

"Customer service is a big drawback. From my personal experience, after creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody."

"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."

"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."

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

"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."

"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"The pricing could be made cheaper."

"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."

"This is an affordable product."

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

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

More LambdaTest pricing and cost advice

"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 pricing of the product is an issue."

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

"The tool's price is high."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"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."

"It's an expensive solution."

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

882,333 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 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 40% of the time

Sauce Labs vs LambdaTest

Compared 14% 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 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

February 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

882,333 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.