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

Bitbar vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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 (11th)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
18th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (6th)
 

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 Lab for Mobile and Web is 0.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
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.
Robinson Caiado - PeerSpot reviewer
Automates mobile solutions while boosting productivity and fostering innovation
It allows multiple devices to be used and gives flexibility in adding devices when a project is needed. Most of the time, I have several devices where it is predefined. We can use it, but sometimes, we must scale it in a particular situation. It's very flexible. It is very important because we can use a different approach to software testing, for example, to find a way to execute UFT software testing with only one execution. This reproduces all the platforms that we need.

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."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
"The product is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
 

Cons

"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."
"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
"The product could be more affordable."
"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
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
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Computer Software Company
18%
Non Profit
9%
Healthcare Company
5%
 

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 Mobile?
For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
Sometimes, it's challenging to have relations with OpenText support.
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
We use it in financial services companies to automate mobile solutions and applications.
 

Also Known As

Testdroid
Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center
 

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
Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
Find out what your peers are saying about Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.