Bitbar vs OpenText UFT One comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
SmartBear Logo
1,614 views|1,185 comparisons
OpenText Logo
11,757 views|7,234 comparisons
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

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.
To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: March 2024).
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"Ability to use different frameworks.""Game testing and the API for apps are good."

More Bitbar Pros →

"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting.""I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications.""The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great.""Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator.""I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well.""The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments.""I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code.""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."

More OpenText UFT One Pros →

Cons
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved.""Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."

More Bitbar Cons →

"Technical support could be improved.""The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded.""Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function.""The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well.""We'd like it to have less scripting.""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.""[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution.""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."

More OpenText UFT One Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."
  • More Bitbar Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
  • "The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
  • "It's an expensive solution."
  • "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 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."
  • "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 pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
  • "The price is one aspect that could be improved."
  • More OpenText UFT One Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Top Answer: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… more »
    Top Answer:My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
    Top Answer: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… more »
    Ranking
    26th
    Views
    1,614
    Comparisons
    1,185
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    2nd
    Views
    11,757
    Comparisons
    7,234
    Reviews
    20
    Average Words per Review
    694
    Rating
    7.9
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Testdroid
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    Learn More
    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.
    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
    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
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company18%
    Government10%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    Healthcare Company8%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business24%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise62%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise75%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: March 2024.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    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.