Bitbar vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #26, while OpenText is ranked #18 with an average rating of 8.3. SmartBear holds a 0.7% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 0.8% mindshare. Additionally, 50% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 82% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Bitbar

Read 3 Bitbar reviews

777 Views
542 Comparison Views

50% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Read 17 OpenText UFT Digital Lab reviews

598 Views
339 Comparison Views

82% willing to recommend

Bitbar

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT Digital Lab and Bitbar compete in software testing solutions. OpenText UFT Digital Lab offers robust support and competitive pricing, making it favorable. However, Bitbar's comprehensive features give it an edge for those needing extensive functionality.

Features: OpenText UFT Digital Lab provides rich test automation capabilities that integrate seamlessly with existing tools, strong integration support, and competitive pricing aligned with its feature set. Bitbar is notable for its wide device and OS testing scope, crucial for cross-platform compatibility, focus on diverse environment testing, and scalability and flexibility in test deployment.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT Digital Lab is known for straightforward installation and accessible support services, enhancing customer experience. Bitbar has a complex setup process but benefits from an extensive resource base that facilitates scalability and flexibility, which is ideal for diverse testing scenarios.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT Digital Lab offers a competitive pricing model that provides substantial ROI through effective support and integration. Bitbar, with higher initial costs, is justified by advanced testing capabilities, offering high returns for businesses needing comprehensive testing across diverse platforms.

To learn more, read our detailed Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 846,617 peers since 2012

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

26th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Platforms (12th)

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

18th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 0.7%, down from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT Digital Lab is 0.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

it_user1267398

Senior Automation Engineer at a retailer with 10,001+ employees

Has the ability to use different frameworks for testing although it is lacking in capability options

Setup depends on how you are using the product. In our case, it was quite simple. We did it ourselves and it didn't take much time, maybe a day. We used one person per team for setup, usually an engineer or developer. For each team, we had one person to assist with deployment. We have multiple teams so each team had someone dealing with setup. We now have two people working in the company who deal with the maintenance of the solution.

Read full review

Robinson Caiado

Sales Leader at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Automates mobile solutions while boosting productivity and fostering innovation

It allows multiple devices to be used and gives flexibility in adding devices when a project is needed. Most of the time, I have several devices where it is predefined. We can use it, but sometimes, we must scale it in a particular situation. It's very flexible. It is very important because we can use a different approach to software testing, for example, to find a way to execute UFT software testing with only one execution. This reproduces all the platforms that we need.

Read full 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."

"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."

"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."

"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."

"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."

"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."

"The product is easy to use."

Cons

"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."

"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."

"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."

"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."

"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."

"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."

"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."

"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."

"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."

"The product could be more affordable."

"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Comms Service Provider

Insurance Company

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

21%

Non Profit

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

Sometimes, it's challenging to have relations with OpenText support.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

We use it in financial services companies to automate mobile solutions and applications.

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs Bitbar

Compared 54% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Bitbar

Compared 46% of the time

More Bitbar Competitors

Perfecto vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 24% of the time

Sauce Labs vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 18% of the time

BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 17% of the time

Appium vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 16% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 14% of the time

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Mobile App Platforms

April 2025

Download Bitbar product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

March 2025

Download OpenText UFT Digital Lab product report

Also Known As

Testdroid

Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center

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.

SmartBear

Our enterprise-level solution is a complete, centralized lab of real mobile devices and emulators. With remote access, developers and testers can develop, debug, test, monitor, and optimize mobile apps from anywhere.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Rovio, Paf, Supercell, NITRO Games, Seriously, AVG, Google, Bosch, Yahoo, Microsoft, Yandex, Mozilla, eBay, PayPal, TESCO, Cisco WebEx, Facebook, LinkedIn, skype, Subway

Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB

Buyer's Guide

Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab

March 2025

Free Report: Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Find out what your peers are saying about Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Bitbar vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab report.

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.