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."It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"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."
"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."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"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."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."
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.
