Bitbar vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #26, while OpenText is ranked #13 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

777 Views
542 Comparison Views

50% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Developer

Read 38 OpenText UFT Developer reviews

1,882 Views
1,294 Comparison Views

77% willing to recommend

Bitbar

OpenText UFT Developer

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT Developer and Bitbar compete in enhancing software testing processes. OpenText UFT Developer holds an edge in enterprise environments due to its seamless integration capabilities.

Features: OpenText UFT Developer offers comprehensive test automation, robust script reusability, and integration with DevOps tools, ideal for large-scale enterprise automation tasks. Bitbar provides extensive device testing capabilities, scalability in cloud environments, and flexibility in supporting multiple platforms, making it suitable for diverse testing environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT Developer offers a simpler on-premise deployment model and is supported by responsive customer service channels. Bitbar's cloud model allows for quick deployment but may require technical skills for complex configurations.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT Developer involves higher upfront setup costs yet delivers significant ROI due to its automation efficiency in large-scale projects. Bitbar offers lower initial costs with a pay-as-you-go model and flexibility, appealing to smaller teams and startups.

To learn more, read our detailed Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT Developer Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT Developer

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 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

26th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Platforms (12th)

OpenText UFT Developer

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

13th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (13th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 0.8%, down from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT Developer is 2.6%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

it_user1267398

Senior Automation Engineer at a retailer with 10,001+ employees

Has the ability to use different frameworks for testing although it is lacking in capability options

Setup depends on how you are using the product. In our case, it was quite simple. We did it ourselves and it didn't take much time, maybe a day. We used one person per team for setup, usually an engineer or developer. For each team, we had one person to assist with deployment. We have multiple teams so each team had someone dealing with setup. We now have two people working in the company who deal with the maintenance of the solution.

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

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

"Ability to use different frameworks."

"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."

"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."

"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 most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."

"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"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."

"The most valuable feature is stability."

More OpenText UFT Developer pros

Cons

"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."

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

"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."

"The pricing could be improved."

"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."

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

"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."

"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."

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

"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

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

"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 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."

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

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

More OpenText UFT Developer 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

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Insurance Company

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

10%

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?

It's a high-priced solution compared to Selenium. Selenium is free, though there is a paid version now too. Selenium has improved a lot, and it's still okay to use. It's a functional testing tool, ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites. It is also suggested that the design and some functionality could be better.

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs Bitbar

Compared 46% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Bitbar

Compared 38% of the time

LambdaTest vs Bitbar

Compared 16% of the time

More Bitbar Competitors

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 59% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 20% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText UFT Developer Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Mobile App Platforms

April 2025

Download Bitbar product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer

April 2025

Download OpenText UFT Developer 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

With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.

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 UFT Developer

April 2025

Free Report: Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT Developer

Find out what your peers are saying about Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT Developer and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT Developer 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.