We performed a comparison between Bitbar and OpenText UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"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."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"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 most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 26th in Functional Testing Tools while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, CrossBrowserTesting, Sauce Labs and LambdaTest, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive.
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.
