No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Bitbar vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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
30th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Platforms (10th)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 1.5%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.5%, up from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.5%
Bitbar1.5%
Other90.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1288116 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Digital & Cognitive Services at a tech company with 11-50 employees
A testing platform with a good API for apps, but pricing is complicated
I like that the AI Testbot is a near-zero code application for testing. For this use case, the function is good. The services are robust. Game testing and the API for apps are also good. From the perspective of pricing, licensing, ease of use, integration with other applications, impact complexity, and integration with other tools, we're pretty much very satisfied.
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The overall product is awesome for device fragmentation, but not for automation."
"From the perspective of pricing, licensing, ease of use, integration with other applications, impact complexity, and integration with other tools, we're pretty much very satisfied."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"The feature that I like the most is that you can use different frameworks, whether it's APM or something else, and you don't need to worry about the framework."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier."
"​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests."
"If you're a company that is working with any legacy systems, and you need automation with both web-based applications and terminal-based applications, the solution would be a good thing to use."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"Whereas, in UFT One, I like that our maintenance costs have been reduced by a lot because UFT One is using an artificial intelligence feature to identify objects visually."
 

Cons

"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Improvement of the product could be made by running the dashboard part, it gets stuck sometimes."
"Some stages of its automation is not working correctly and I need to make changes in the code created by Testdroid."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"In terms of what could be improved, they need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user and if we're going to spread this throughout the organization, we'll need to spend a whole lot of money."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"Scalability can be high, but there are things that work against it. You're bound by the licensing structure, so in order to get bigger benefits, you have to have multiple copies, and that costs a ton of money."
"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."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"Sometimes you need a little bit more, but then HP help us to find it as they're knowledgeable troubleshooters."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The price is reasonable."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
15%
Construction Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

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...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.