Leapwork vs Bitbar

Leapwork vs Bitbar

5 February 2024 Stephan Petzl Leave a comment Tool comparisons

In the dynamic realm of test automation, Leapwork and Bitbar emerge as prominent solutions, yet they cater to distinct needs. Leapwork is acclaimed for its no-code, AI-enhanced capabilities, enabling even non-technical users to automate tests across web and mobile platforms with ease.

In contrast, Bitbar offers a cloud-based testing sanctuary with a vast array of real devices and browsers, streamlining the testing process without the hassle of lab maintenance. Both platforms boast report generation but differ in their approach to no-code solutions and device testing availability. This article will dissect their unique features, aiding you in identifying the ideal tool for your testing repertoire.

Latest update: 1/9/2024, 5:35:10 PM
We do not guarantee the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information presented on our website. This includes prices, product specifications, and availability, which are subject to change. The reviews on this site are collected from g2.com and crozdesk.com and summarized by us.

Feature comparison of Leapwork and Bitbar

Free Plan
On Premise
Device Farm
No Code
Uses Ai
Generates Reports
Uses Computer Vision
Ease Of Usevery easy to learneasy to learn
Is Open Source
Support Included
Review Pros – Comprehensive data storage abilities without being locked into a single solution.
– Excellent support with timely solutions upon request.
– Ease of use in creating subflows for reusable tasks, which benefits non-technical testers.
– Enables manual testers to create automation without extensive coding knowledge.
– GUI-based platform that is easy to learn with a supportive knowledge base.
– No technical prerequisites required for use.
– In-depth strategy editor that supports web, desktop, and API automation.
– Seamless integration of test cases involving both desktop and web applications.
– Video export feature of executed test cases for documentation and training.
– Excellent debugging functionality, including live video execution and video recording.
– Extensive support for cross-browser testing, allowing for quick identification of bugs.
– Ability to take screenshots and record tests when a test case fails, enhancing the debugging process.
– Offers a Record & Play feature which is highly valued by users.
– User-friendly interface that supports a large number of browsers, making it easy to test across different environments.
– Positive feedback on the tool’s reliability with no significant dislikes reported by some users.
– Simplifies site updates and cross-browser compatibility checks for multiple clients.
– Provides a wide range of systems and devices for testing purposes.
– Enables efficient automation of testing across various devices and operating systems.
– Cost-effective, with the tool’s efficiency offsetting the expense through time savings.
– Effective dashboard that provides a quick and concise overview of testing status and results.
Review Cons – Minor user interface issues, such as watermarks not disappearing when typing.
– Lack of check-in control in the Platform version compared to the Enterprise version.
– Reporting features could be enhanced, such as email reports and dashboard improvements.
– Identifying some web elements can be counterintuitive and may require advanced knowledge.
– Mobile automation not built-in; reliance on third-party providers or tools is necessary.
– Test execution can be slow when using remote agents.
– Limited functionality for executing sub-flows compared to main flows.
– Data-driven test automation from Excel is not dynamic and could be improved.
– Limited Excel integration with only basic Read and Write blocks available.
– Still an on-premises tool; could benefit from being cloud-based with automated backups and disaster recovery.
– Occasionally, web applications fail to launch on Internet Explorer (IE 11), indicating compatibility issues.
– Customer support experiences have been inconsistent, with some users finding it difficult to get clear answers and technical assistance.
– Aggressive sales tactics have been reported, leading to a negative experience for some customers.
– Pricing discrepancies and lack of clear communication regarding costs have been a concern, resulting in customer dissatisfaction.
– The user experience (UX) could be improved, especially for beginners; suggestions include having different modes for novice and expert users.
– The onboarding process, while praised for being quick and easy, could potentially be further optimized for new users.

Pricing Model Comparison: Leapwork vs. Bitbar

Leapwork Pricing Overview

Leapwork offers a customizable pricing strategy aimed at serving a wide range of business sizes and needs. Rather than presenting fixed pricing tiers, Leapwork prefers a direct engagement with potential customers to create a tailored quote. This individualized pricing is designed to align closely with an organization’s specific goals and the dynamics of their team. The company emphasizes the importance of understanding each client’s unique context to deliver a solution that is not just generic but optimally suited to their situation.

Bitbar Pricing Overview

Bitbar, by SmartBear, provides a more structured pricing model with several defined tiers geared towards different levels of testing requirements. The “Live Testing” plan, priced at $39 per parallel per month when billed annually, offers unlimited access to various testing features including real mobile devices and desktop browsers. The “BitBar Unlimited” plan, at $177 per parallel per month, extends the offering to include unlimited automated testing minutes. For larger or more specialized needs, Bitbar proposes an “Enterprise” option with custom solutions and prices available upon request. Additionally, Bitbar supports the Open Source community by offering free access to its platform for Open Source projects. All paid plans come with a 14-day free trial.

Comparative Analysis of Pricing Models

Common Points:

  • Both Leapwork and Bitbar cater to businesses with varying needs, offering pricing models that scale with the customer’s requirements.
  • Each company provides personalized solutions for enterprises, recognizing the necessity for tailored services in complex or unique use cases.
  • Both platforms invite potential customers to contact them directly for a quote, ensuring a more precise fit for their needs.

Key Differences:

  • Pricing Transparency: Bitbar provides specific pricing for its lower-tier plans, whereas Leapwork does not publicly disclose any pricing, opting for a fully personalized approach.
  • Pricing Structure: Bitbar employs a tiered pricing model with clear delineations between different levels of service, while Leapwork customizes each quote without predefined tiers.
  • Free Trials and Open Source Support: Bitbar offers a 14-day free trial for all its paid plans and a complimentary service for Open Source projects. Leapwork does not mention free trials or Open Source support in its pricing description.
  • Billing Method: Bitbar’s pricing information specifies annual billing for its structured plans, while Leapwork does not detail its billing frequency or method, likely due to the customized nature of its pricing.

Readers should note that Leapwork’s pricing model is highly customized and requires direct engagement to determine costs, making it potentially suitable for businesses seeking a personalized approach. On the other hand, Bitbar’s model is more transparent and structured, offering immediate clarity on costs for its standard plans, along with a free trial period. While both models emphasize scalability and customization for larger enterprise needs, they cater to different preferences regarding pricing transparency and the immediacy of information.

Like this article? there’s more where that came from!