Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

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 0.9% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 2.9% mindshare. Additionally, 50% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 78% of OpenText users who would recommend it.
Bitbar
Read 3 Bitbar reviews
  • 667 Views
  • 534 Comparison Views
50% willing to recommend
OpenText Functional Testing...
Read 39 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews
  • 1,874 Views
  • 1,612 Comparison Views
78% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and Bitbar are competing in software testing solutions. While OpenText is favored for its reliability and support, Bitbar has a competitive edge due to its extensive features and value for cost.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers supports script execution, comprehensive test management integration, and efficient automation workflows. Bitbar offers vast device coverage, cloud-based capabilities, and robust integration options.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText offers straightforward on-premises deployment with strong customer service for simplicity and efficiency. Bitbar's cloud-based platform eases scaling and offers tailored support for flexible customer interaction.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText is known for competitive pricing, providing significant ROI through reduced setup costs and continued savings. Bitbar requires higher initial costs and subscription fees but offers rapid returns due to broad testing capabilities and reducing time to market.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Report (Updated: September 2025).
Buyer's Guide
Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
September 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 869,513 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
3
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Platforms (10th)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 0.9%, down from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.9%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers2.9%
Bitbar0.9%
Other96.2%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1288116 - PeerSpot reviewer
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 - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer 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, 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

"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"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."
"The solution is very scalable."
"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros
 

Cons

"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"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."
"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."
"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pricing and cost advice
report
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
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Performing Arts
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise29
 

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?
As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs Bitbar Logo
BrowserStack vs Bitbar
Compared 53% of the time
Sauce Labs vs Bitbar Logo
Sauce Labs vs Bitbar
Compared 47% of the time
More Bitbar Competitors
OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
Compared 47% of the time
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
Compared 12% of the time
SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
Compared 6% of the time
Wikidi Testomato vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
Wikidi Testomato vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
Compared 5% of the time
IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Logo
IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
Compared 5% of the time
More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
Mobile App Platforms
September 2025
Bitbar reportDownload Bitbar product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
September 2025
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reportDownload 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
September 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: September 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
869,513 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.