LambdaTest is a Quality Engineering Platform that offers a full-stack testing cloud with 10K+ real devices and over 3,000 browsers for cross-browser and end-to-end testing. With AI-native test management, MCP servers, and agent-based automation, LambdaTest supports Selenium, Appium, Playwright, and all major frameworks. AI Agents like HyperExecute and KaneAI bring AI and cloud into test workflows, enabling automation testing with 100+ integrations. From infrastructure to…
$19
per month Parallel Test
QAComplete
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
QAComplete is a performance testing tool from SmartBear. The vendor says QAComplete was built from the ground-up to be an easy-to-use test case management tool, adapting to the user's existing processes and empowering users to manage all of their manual and automated tests with ease, while reporting on all test results in one central location. The vendor's goal is for QAComplete to allows users to spend less time managing tests and focus on what they do best; making great…
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
