AutomationHQ vs. LambdaTest

The AutomationHQ tool is well suited for small to medium size projects, but sometimes there is difficulty in the case of complex elements which are present within multiple Iframes.

As reactnative devs we develop hybrid apps for both ios and Android and testing on different physical devices is very annoying while as with LambdaTest we can just select the virtual device boot that and start testing on the go. No need to keep devices. Sometimes clients report issues and they provide the device name and if available in LambdaTest we can just test and fix the device specific bugs

• The best thing I liked about AutomationHQ is that it intelligently identify web elements and track changes in real-time applications
• It supports Data driven testing from mainly three data sources from Excel/XML/JSON
• There are myriad pre-build test steps, which we can use to built our own scripts.

• Offers geolocation testing in automation which is amazing!
• You can select browsers, timezone, country and run the capability to start testing instantly.
• We could scale up with parallel testing on local environment without any maintenance cost.
• Integration with project management tools like JIRA, CI/CD tools like Jenkins, Gitlab which makes our test cycle easier

• AutomationHQ doesn’t have test cases version control, we have to currently manually do this by copying the test script and [renaming] with the version. I wish AHQ can implement the version control so I don’t have to keep test script copies
• Complex elements like within multiple iframes have difficulty at run time. It seems we have to run it multiple time until AHQ's AI algorithm "learn" what is the right way

• 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

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

Using LambdaTest feels pretty straightforward once you get the hang of it. The platform has a clean interface so jumping between different features isn’t much work. things feel smooth in UI automation. It takes some time to understand the overall once that is done it'll become easier. The detailed test logs and visual regression features especially stand out in helping you identify issues quickly without extra effort.

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.

Implementation of Lambdatest was very easy for different project requirements.

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.

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

Incentivized

• We have received gains for about 150% over a long period of time

• 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