We performed a comparison between Bitbar and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Ability to use different frameworks."
"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"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."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 26th in Functional Testing Tools while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. 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 One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, CrossBrowserTesting, Sauce Labs and LambdaTest, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite.
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.