testRigor vs Bitbar

testRigor vs Bitbar

1 February 2024 Stephan Petzl Leave a comment Tool comparisons

In the ever-evolving landscape of test automation, testRigor and Bitbar stand out with distinct features tailored for software quality assurance. testRigor offers a no-code, AI-powered platform that simplifies test creation in plain English, ideal for teams with limited technical skills.

On the other hand, Bitbar provides a cloud-based solution with a vast array of real devices and browsers for comprehensive testing. While both support web and mobile app testing and offer AI capabilities and reporting, testRigor boasts a free plan and ease of use, whereas Bitbar highlights its scalable testing options and a 14-day trial.

Latest update: 1/31/2024, 3:45:26 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 testRigor and Bitbar

Free Plan
On Premise
Device Farm
Generates Reports
Uses Computer VisionN/A
No Code
Uses Ai
Ease Of Usevery easy to learneasy to learn
Is Open Source
Support Included
Review Pros 1. Allows writing and generating test scripts using plain English statements.
2. Offers integration with various tools such as JIRA and TestRail.
3. Capable of running tests on multiple browsers and devices simultaneously.
4. Features automatic test script generation, saving time and effort.
5. Provides efficient customer support, ensuring ease of use and implementation.
6. Eliminates the need for learning different programming languages or testing frameworks.
7. Enables the entire team to write end-to-end UI tests quickly without programming knowledge.
8. Generates human-readable test scripts that are easily understandable by anyone.
9. Automates test cases in a very short span of time.
10. Serves as a scalable solution for building a software testing process in non-software companies.
– 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 1. The tool has been reported to crash occasionally, leading to more test case failures.
2. The cost of server resources may be a concern for some users.
3. Lacks educational materials to help improve QA efficiency for companies with less experience.
4. Some users have experienced issues with server responsiveness.
5. Initial challenges may be faced by companies with a limited QA team and lack of software testing knowledge.
– 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 Comparison: testRigor vs Bitbar

testRigor Pricing Overview

testRigor, a test automation tool, utilizes a tiered pricing system. The Free plan is tailored for open-source projects with public test visibility. The Private plan, at $900 per month, includes private tests and expandable parallelization options. The Enterprise plan is designed for larger organizations, offering custom pricing, dedicated support, and potential on-site deployment. All plans feature unlimited users and cases.

Bitbar Pricing Overview

Bitbar by SmartBear presents a flexible pricing approach. The “Live Testing” plan is priced at $39 per parallel per month and includes unlimited testing minutes and advanced debugging tools. The “BitBar Unlimited” plan, at $177 per parallel per month, offers additional features like unlimited automated testing minutes. The “Enterprise” plan is customizable and priced upon request. Open Source projects can access the platform for free. All plans provide unlimited testing minutes and a 14-day trial period.

Comparison of Pricing Models

Common Points:

  • Support for Open Source: Both testRigor and Bitbar offer free access to open-source projects, emphasizing their commitment to supporting the developer community.
  • Unlimited Users: Each service allows an unlimited number of users on all plans, making them scalable for teams of any size.
  • Enterprise Options: Both provide an Enterprise solution with customizable features and pricing to accommodate the specific needs of larger organizations.
  • Free Trial: Each platform offers a 14-day trial, enabling potential customers to evaluate the tools before committing financially.
  • Unlimited Cases/Testing Minutes: Users can conduct an unlimited number of test cases with testRigor and enjoy unlimited testing minutes with Bitbar, ensuring extensive testing capabilities without additional costs.


  • Pricing Structure: testRigor uses a tiered model with clear pricing for its Free and Private plans, while Bitbar employs a per-parallel pricing strategy, particularly for its Live Testing and BitBar Unlimited plans.
  • Parallelization: testRigor offers parallelization as an add-on purchase, while Bitbar includes parallel testing in its pricing, with each automated parallel providing an additional live parallel in the Unlimited plan.
  • Privacy of Tests: testRigor’s Free plan has publicly visible tests and results, whereas Bitbar’s equivalent free offering for open-source projects does not explicitly state any such condition.
  • Plan Features: Bitbar’s plans are differentiated by access to real mobile devices and advanced debugging tools, while testRigor’s Private and Enterprise plans emphasize private tests and dedicated support.
  • Customizable Solutions: Both offer customizable solutions for Enterprise clients, but Bitbar extends this with dedicated devices and private cloud setups.

In summary, while testRigor and Bitbar share similarities in their support for open-source projects and scalable user access, they differ in their pricing structures, parallel testing offerings, and specific features included in their plans. Potential customers should consider these differences when evaluating which platform best suits their testing needs and budgetary constraints.

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