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

Bitbar vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web comparison

 

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
28th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Platforms (9th)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
18th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 1.5%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is 1.9%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web1.9%
Bitbar1.5%
Other96.6%
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.
reviewer2356440 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Experienced ease in automation with strong support while seeking improvements in low-code options
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers flexibility of deployment, from on-premises to UFT One which is on the cloud. They provide capability for immediate deployment, and assets can be migrated easily. They include enablers specifically for quick migration of test assets. While I have not personally been involved in these migrations, I have observed some clients using it directly while others make a complete shift from OpenText to Tricentis platforms. There have not been many clients moving from OpenText platforms from on-premises to cloud because most shifts have been toward different product categories such as Tricentis altogether.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"The overall product is awesome for device fragmentation, but not for automation."
"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."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"The pricing is great."
"This helped my prior organization immensely due to the ability to remotely manipulate devices, even by offshore vendors."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"In general, in my opinion, Mobile Center is a good product that allows us to do everything we need to automate application testing for mobile."
"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."
"We escalate tickets to HPE, and we don't have problems."
"The ideas and possibilities that this tool has are incredibly useful."
 

Cons

"Some stages of its automation is not working correctly and I need to make changes in the code created by Testdroid."
"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."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"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."
"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 don't think the product as it is right now is going to sell itself, but it's really what are the next steps."
"It's complex, and you need more skills than in most implementations."
"Because of connection errors, we've haven't yet been able to set it up properly at my company."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"However, it is still a young product that is improving leaps and bounds each release."
"OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web could benefit from implementing a low-code, no-code solution that aids in quick automation code preparation."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."
"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
"The product could be more affordable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Non Profit
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
Digital Lab is a pretty solid product with areas that could be continuously improved on.
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
I deal with OpenText Analysis Database and Core Performance Engineering, which are categories of software rather than individual pieces. We focus on the ADM area, which includes ALM, UFT One, UFT D...
What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus UFT Mobile?
I do have experience with OpenText products and OpenText ALM. I have been using ALM Quality Center, which has had a few names for it over time, but it is the old Quality Center that was then rename...
 

Also Known As

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

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
Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
Find out what your peers are saying about Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.