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."Ability to use different frameworks."
"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"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."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"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."
"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."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
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.
