We performed a comparison between Bitbar and OpenText UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Ability to use different frameworks."
"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"The pricing could be improved."
"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 26th in Functional Testing Tools while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, CrossBrowserTesting, Sauce Labs and LambdaTest, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive.
See our list of best Functional Testing 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.