We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"We can automate our scenarios in a data driven format, which shows there is no rework on scripts. We only need to update the test data and run for a number of scenarios."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
"Parasoft SOAtest has an internal refresh function where you can refresh the software to show the changes you’ve made in your projects. Unfortunately this function does not work properly, because it often does not show the changes after you’ve hit te refresh button a few times."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Apache JMeter. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best API Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation 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.