We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and ReadyAPI 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."This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"Integrates well with other products."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"It is the best solution you can get across the globe for API, test automation, and API penetration testing."
"It's easy to automate for more data-driven testing."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the scripting tools and the connectivity to external data sources, such as Excel and PDF files. There are plenty of useful features that are useful, such as automating flexibility and usability. Overall, the solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are its robust functionality and collaboration capabilities."
"It can create stress tests very fast, and some features help you do it fast."
"The most valuable feature has been the assertion as a test step as this has allowed us to increase the scope of testing and validation."
"The most valuable feature is being able to run each version for test suites."
"ReadyAPI's best features are that it's user-friendly and its behavior-driven development is flexible."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"It is challenging doing upgrades and patches because sometimes the environmental variables or suits in the projects get erased."
"To generate a test suite in API, I had to create a separate one each time because otherwise it was just override the test. Each API had to be added separately. I thought I could just have one and then create different methods, but I had to add each API separately to create the test for that. That is an area that could be improved."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"There are lots of options within the solution, however they are not upfront or user-friendly."
"The overall scope of this solution is limited and could be improved."
"The reporting in ReadyAPI could be better. It can become sloppy, sometimes it works and other times it does not."
"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."
"It doesn't have connectors to the NoSQL database. This is one of the things where they do not have a very solid strategy today. Other solutions have an in-built mechanism where I can directly and easily connect. An API is more around a user submitting a request on the frontend. It then hits the backend, puts the data, and responds back. If I am hitting MongoDB or NoSQL databases, I do not have ready-made inbuilt solutions in ReadyAPI that can easily help me in automating it faster. In our organization, we deal with NoSQL databases, and therefore, we need Groovy. We just cannot have a connector from ReadyAPI to do that. I have to write Groovy scripts. If you have themes that are predominantly using MongoDB, it leads to more maintenance and support activity because we are introducing more code into our commission. In terms of additional features, it can have cloud support. This is one of the things where we are getting into cloud support. We'll see how it works, but it is one of the doubts that we still have."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and Selenium HQ, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test and SmartBear TestComplete. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. ReadyAPI report.
See our list of best Functional Testing 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.
