No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Bitbar vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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
28th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Platforms (9th)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 1.6%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.1%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.1%
Bitbar1.6%
Other95.3%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1288116 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The feature that I like the most is that you can use different frameworks, whether it's APM or something else, and you don't need to worry about the framework."
"The overall product is awesome for device fragmentation, but not for automation."
"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."
"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"If a company doesn't have people who are skilled in programming, they definitely should go with UFT, as it's simple to use and doesn't require programming knowledge."
"The ability to evaluate live applications in our production environment for unusual behavior and determine problem areas and solutions is the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"To the business, I would say overall it increases the amount of testing that gets done, with more people interacting with automating."
"We pretty much use that to streamline workflow and enable productivity in a business context in our business unit as well as in our IT shop, so just reducing workload on IT people as well as testing."
"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 cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
 

Cons

"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Some stages of its automation is not working correctly and I need to make changes in the code created by Testdroid."
"Improvement of the product could be made by running the dashboard part, it gets stuck sometimes."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Since it was a slightly different way of doing things, it was a little complex."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"I didn't find them to be exceptionally good. They are very slow, and for every problem, they want you to raise a ticket."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"Number one thing is we are an Oracle shop, so we do Oracle ERP testing, and that add-in from UFT, that technology is not in LeanFT right now."
"There are still some stability issues."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"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 licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"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."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Comms Service Provider
14%
University
10%
Construction Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Performing Arts
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

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 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.
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...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.