TestMu AI vs. TestComplete

One day, I needed to test a specific issue that was occurring only on Pixel phones. I turned to LambdaTest, quickly identified the problem, and was able to fix it. There hasn't been a situation where I felt LambdaTest didn't help, it's my go-to solution for testing, as it solves many problems.

Incentivized

Best suited to smaller unit test or tests broken up, couple of forms at a time Not suited - larger regressions test involving multiple systems. - my main regression involving payments has been unsuccessful for the last 3 years despite all working fine separately and while being watched

• Very accessible as multiple users can be added in each subscription
• Very reliable as it is very close to the actual device when it comes to operating system and version behavior
• There are a lot of options for devices and browsers that users can choose from when it comes to emulating and testing

• Identifying UI objects and application structure
• Expandability of tests through scripts and script extensions/plugins
• low barrier of entry (you can get started quickly, and other's don't need much explanation to contribute on a basic level)
• Possibility of Jira integration for reporting
• Relatively few (and usually easy to solve) git conflicts when working simultaneously
• easy handling of test data, also for iterative tests

Incentivized

• More real devices should be added like I have Samsung mobile but it was not in the list
• It takes time in checking the link on LambdaTest if we compare with real mobiles
• Sometimes exact results are not matching as from real mobiles

• TestComplete could stand to have a simplified view for different types of users. For instance, as a manager/architecture guy, I'm not so interested in getting into the code and am more interested in file-based interactions.
• TestComplete could use more integration with reporting for things like TeamCity to improve test status visibility.

Incentivized

The reason i have given the 10 points becasue the problem LambdaTest solves is providing access to all devices in one place, allowing developers to identify the same errors they would encounter on real devices. This makes life much easier, especially for developers who regularly face cross-device functionality issues. It's a big plus point that positions LambdaTest as an all-in-one solution.

Incentivized

We have bigger test automation pack using test complete at the same time we also think this is not good performing tool for large number of test automation scripts.

Incentivized

Because of the ease of use of the platform, we just save a lot of time and effort with this as its a feature rich solution, we just need to upload app binary once and for everytime we need to test on a different device we can just directly install that binary on the device without the pain of reupload.

It is usable when you become accustomed to its quirks. Not using it for two months and then you need to re-learn the quirks for some features (but some quirks are so awful that they will never fade from your memory). So, when using it regularly, it is possible to be quite productive, if no big correction in name mapping is needed.

Incentivized

yes always available

Incentivized

haven't found any glitch while using this

Incentivized

The customer support team is very active and cooperative. Once, I contacted them in their off timings because of an issue, I got an instant reply from the executive and he resolved the issue very efficiently. This is why we have been using LambdaTest for more than two years. It is best suited for us.

Some bugs were quickly resolved, but most UX quirks of the tool are just marked "as designed". No follow up for enhancement request.

Incentivized

Implementation of Lambdatest was very easy for different project requirements.

Incentivized

If you develop a mobile application and your testing process goes in cloud, probably you will face a problem - how to implement a stable connection between your mobile devices and testing servers

Incentivized

While BrowserStack is also a well-established platform, we found LambdaTest to offer similar and even better features at reasonable pricing. LambdaTest is more cost-effective than BrowserStack. LambdaTest provides a free forever plan, while BrowserStack does not. Even manual testing plans are better priced than BrowserStack’s. In terms of UI and onboarding, we found LambdaTest more user-friendly as well.

TestComplete stacks up against them in terms of GUI and seamless performance. It records each and every step and action been performed in the application and produces a detailed report in a well-structured manner. It can connect and access seamlessly among various databases directly to speed up the testing process.

Incentivized

not all department, but we're using for our clients

Incentivized

• Automation testing has a bit of a learning curve
• Lack of real device keep that bug in your head if not on the website.
• Need to wait for a while for a new OS or browser version on the contrary of immediate availability in case of owning a lab

• Saves hundreds of man-hours with either QA testing or data entry
• With the small cost of the product, it has saved the company money with both employee costs as well as the cost of mistakes made by human error or software bugs

Incentivized