Bitbar vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #27, while OpenText is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.8. SmartBear holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 2.6% mindshare. Additionally, 50% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 77% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Bitbar

Read 3 Bitbar reviews

681 Views
383 Comparison Views

50% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 38 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews

1,679 Views
1,028 Comparison Views

77% willing to recommend

Bitbar

OpenText Functional Testing...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and Bitbar compete in the advanced testing solutions category. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers excels in pricing and support, while Bitbar outshines in features, justifying its higher pricing.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers integration with various development environments, robust test automation capabilities, and scalable solutions. Bitbar provides extensive platform coverage, flexibility in testing both desktop and mobile applications, and a broader range of supported platforms.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers features a straightforward deployment model and reliable customer support. Bitbar supports cloud-based deployment with quick setup and flexible service configurations, though its customer service is less customized compared to OpenText.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers competitive pricing with significant ROI, leveraging scalable and reusable test solutions. Bitbar has higher initial costs but provides great ROI through extensive testing capabilities and efficient resource utilization.

To learn more, read our detailed Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Report (Updated: May 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 859,129 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Bitbar

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

27th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Platforms (11th)

OpenText Functional Testing...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

12th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (11th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 0.8%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.6%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

reviewer1288116

Head of Digital & Cognitive Services at a tech company with 11-50 employees

A testing platform with a good API for apps, but pricing is complicated

I like that the AI Testbot is a near-zero code application for testing. For this use case, the function is good. The services are robust. Game testing and the API for apps are also good. From the perspective of pricing, licensing, ease of use, integration with other applications, impact complexity, and integration with other tools, we're pretty much very satisfied.

Read full review

Eitan Gold

SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities

OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"Ability to use different frameworks."

"Game testing and the API for apps are good."

"I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective."

"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."

"Integrates well with other products."

"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."

"The most valuable feature is stability."

"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 solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."

"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

Cons

"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."

"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."

"Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously."

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"The price of the solution could improve."

"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

"The pricing could be improved."

"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."

"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Comms Service Provider

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

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.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object.

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs Bitbar

Compared 38% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Bitbar

Compared 35% of the time

LambdaTest vs Bitbar

Compared 15% of the time

CrossBrowserTesting vs Bitbar

Compared 12% of the time

More Bitbar Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 54% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 15% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 3% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Mobile App Platforms

June 2025

Download Bitbar product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

June 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Also Known As

Testdroid

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

Overview

Testdroid is a set of mobile software development and testing products by Bitbar Technologies Limited. Testdroid comprises three different products: Testdroid Cloud, Testdroid Recorder and Testdroid Enterprise. Testdroid provides an application programming interface through open source software available on GitHub. Testdroid can use testing frameworks, such as Robotium, Appium and uiautomator for native and Selenium for web applications, targeted for mobile application and game developers. Testdroid Cloud contains real Android and iOS powered devices, some of which are available for users. Testdroid Cloud lets users run tests simultaneously on cloud-based service. Testdroid Recorder is a tool for developers and testers for recording user-actions and producing JUnit based test cases on mobile application and games. Testdroid Recorder is available at the Eclipse marketplace. Testdroid Enterprise is a server software for managing automated testing on multiple real Android and iOS powered devices, supporting Gradle build system and Jenkins Continuous Integration.

SmartBear

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers robust automation capabilities with support for complex algorithms, multi-platform testing, and developer-friendly integration using C# and Java, facilitating seamless testing transitions and efficient automation workflows.

This testing tool is highly valued for its integration with ALM and Jenkins, along with its developer-focused environment adaptable to Eclipse and Visual Studio. With AI-based object recognition, an object repository, and test framework integration, it bolsters DevOps practices while reducing IT workloads. Supporting UFT to LeanFT transition, it caters to SAP, Java, .NET environments, and more. Enhanced with stable automation, extensive protocol support, and both on-premises and cloud deployments, it targets performance, regression, and functional testing, while recording and screengrabs enhance automation capabilities. Future improvements could include expanded browser compatibility, enhanced JavaScript and mobile support, and better object recognition.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers?

Complex Algorithm Handling: Manages complex scenarios with ease, including fuzzy logic.
Developer-friendly: Enables coding in C# and Java, integrating seamlessly with popular IDEs.
AI-based Object Recognition: Enhances test automation through advanced object identification.
Extensive Protocol Support: Supports a wide range of protocols for diverse testing requirements.
Seamless Integration: Connects effortlessly with ALM and Jenkins, promoting continuous development.

What benefits can users expect when evaluating OpenText Functional Testing?

Efficient Test Automation: Streamlines test processes, optimizing resource allocation and reducing effort.
Multi-platform Flexibility: Facilitates cross-platform testing, accommodating desktop, web, and banking applications.
Reduced IT Workload: Simplifies automation tasks, decreasing the strain on IT resources.
Enhanced DevOps Support: Integrates well with DevOps practices for continuous testing advancements.

Organizations implement OpenText Functional Testing for complex test automation on desktop, web, and banking applications, supporting performance, regression, and functionality testing across environments like SAP, Java, and .NET. UFT aids in GUI, infrastructure, and ERP application automation, with deployment options including on-premises and cloud implementations. Enhanced screengrabs and recording features aid in practical test case development, while addressing emerging technology needs is a focus.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Rovio, Paf, Supercell, NITRO Games, Seriously, AVG, Google, Bosch, Yahoo, Microsoft, Yandex, Mozilla, eBay, PayPal, TESCO, Cisco WebEx, Facebook, LinkedIn, skype, Subway

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Buyer's Guide

Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

May 2025

Free Report: Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Find out what your peers are saying about Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report.

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.