We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer 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."The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"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 have seen a return on investment."
"The solution is scalable."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."
"The pricing could be improved."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"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 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."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. 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 Parasoft SOAtest writes "Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and Automai AppLoader, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity and Polyspace Code Prover. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.
See our list of best Functional 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.