We performed a comparison between Bitbar and Testim 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."
"The product is easy to use."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while Testim is rated 9.2. 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 Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, Sauce Labs, CrossBrowserTesting and LambdaTest, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Testsigma and Applitools.
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.
