LambdaTest vs. QAComplete

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

Very well suited to requirements management, test suite creation and defect management. Not suited to project/task management.

Incentivized

• 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

• Allows us to create individual tests then group them into comprehensive test plans.
• Allows me to specify custom fields that match our product features to categorize both tests and defects.
• Allows me to create a series of requirements then match tests against them for validation.

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

• The user interface can be somewhat perplexing and difficult to navigate at times.
• Naming conventions aren't always succinct and additional training is needed by those who have more experience using the program.
• A modern refresh of the UI would help keep the product from looking dated.

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

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

I gave QAComplete this rating because though I do feel that it is a powerful tool, it's definitely not designed for the everyday user. Obviously the target demographic is QA specialists who should be team members that are very technical and methodical in their approaches. However, for the rest of the team, it can often time prove difficult to navigate. Also, the UI is in need of a serious refresh.

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.

I have not had to work with their customer service directly yet. Our client has been utilizing this tool for years, so I would assume that the support they have received would be good enough to keep them wanting to continue to use the product.

Incentivized

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.

We had used FogBugz and Freshdesk for quite some time. I hadn't been exposed to QAComplete until recently during a project with one of our clients, but we are already starting to see the superior benefits of this product. Once you wrap your head around the interface and navigate to the bug reports, it becomes a very powerful tool.

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

• From our side, it's been very easy to pick up on bugs reported by our clients. It's a great ROI for the cost as they are fairly minimal in comparison to other QA software.
• I think a negative impact can be the administration of QA items. It definitely feels a bit bogged down.
• My last negative would be that I don't believe it syncs in any way with the Atlassian software suite. I could be wrong on this but manual entry from system to system can be daunting at times.

Incentivized