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

Bitbar vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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
9th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (11th)
 

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 for Developers is 3.7%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.7%
Bitbar1.5%
Other94.8%
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.
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"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."
"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."
"The overall product is awesome for device fragmentation, but not for automation."
"LeanFT integrates with our developers work-flow, so our developers can now perform automation using familiar tools, programming language, and IDE, which helps get the whole team involved in test automation."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"LeanFT's been very good."
"Every single feature on offer is valuable and useful."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"The stability is quite good and we haven't had any issues."
 

Cons

"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Some stages of its automation is not working correctly and I need to make changes in the code created by Testdroid."
"Improvement of the product could be made by running the dashboard part, it gets stuck sometimes."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another one."
"I would rate technical support a one out of five."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"Ultimately, due to the scripting, integration, and other functionality that is missing, we may switch to another solution in the future."
"As the releases come, support for all technologies in the systems under test that UFT currently support will be the obvious place for improvement."
"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"Number one thing is we are an Oracle shop, so we do Oracle ERP testing, and that add-in from UFT, that technology is not in LeanFT right now."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."
"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
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%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...
 

Also Known As

Testdroid
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

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
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.