Bitbar vs OpenText UFT One comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #26, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.1. SmartBear holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 9.9% mindshare. Additionally, 50% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Bitbar

Read 3 Bitbar reviews

777 Views
542 Comparison Views

50% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

Read 96 OpenText UFT One reviews

7,140 Views
4,477 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Bitbar

OpenText UFT One

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT One and Bitbar compete in the software testing domain, where Bitbar often holds an advantage because of its cloud-based flexibility and integration capabilities.

Features: OpenText UFT One integrates well with other OpenText solutions, supports numerous platforms, and includes API testing. Bitbar offers a cloud environment, extensive device testing capabilities, and efficient parallel testing. Bitbar provides more agility and comprehensive testing environments, which can be appealing for mobile and web-focused organizations.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One allows traditional on-premises deployment with robust customer service support. Bitbar's cloud-based deployment facilitates quick setup and scalability but can require advanced configuration skills. OpenText UFT One is suitable for organizations favoring traditional setups, while Bitbar suits agile teams but needs enhanced customer interaction.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One demands significant upfront investment, offering a solid ROI for businesses needing a wide range of testing capabilities. Bitbar's flexible pricing model is attractive to startups and small businesses seeking cost-effective solutions. Bitbar's cloud model provides a competitive ROI, especially for organizations focusing on cloud-native developments.

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

Buyer's Guide

Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT One

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 849,963 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 One

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)

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 One is 9.9%, up from 9.7% 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

Don Ingerson

QA Automation Engineer at Global Fortune 500 Company

With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results

With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.

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."

"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."

"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."

"The stop automation is a great feature."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."

"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."

"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."

"It is a stable solution."

"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."

More OpenText UFT One pros

Cons

"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."

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

"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."

"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."

"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."

"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."

"Technical support could be improved."

"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."

"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."

"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."

More OpenText UFT One cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."

"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""

"The tool's price is high."

"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"It's an expensive solution."

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."

More OpenText UFT One 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

849,963 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

18%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?

We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?

My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs Bitbar

Compared 46% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Bitbar

Compared 37% of the time

LambdaTest vs Bitbar

Compared 17% of the time

More Bitbar Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 12% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 8% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Mobile App Platforms

April 2025

Download Bitbar product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

April 2025

Download OpenText UFT One product report

Also Known As

Testdroid

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

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

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

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

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT One

April 2025

Free Report: Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT One

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT One report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.