We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One 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."The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"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."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"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."
"ReadyAPI's best features are user-friendliness, smooth integration with Postman, the speed of creating test cases, and integration with customer data."
"ReadyAPI's best features are that it's user-friendly and its behavior-driven development is flexible."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
"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 initial setup of ReadyAPI is straightforward."
"The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
"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 initial setup is straightforward."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"The UI should be flexible. Currently, the UI isn't."
"There is room for improvement in ReadyAPI, particularly in the user interface."
"The reporting is not very robust and needs to be improved."
"The overall scope of this solution is limited and could be improved."
"They have performance testing also. However, it's not that great."
"ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time."
"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."
"ReadyAPI could improve by adding a conversion tool from one file type to another. Import support for multiple file types would be beneficial."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. 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 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 One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test and SmartBear TestComplete. See our OpenText UFT One 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.