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 offers a wide range of testing."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"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."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"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."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"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."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"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."
"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 summary reports could be improved."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
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.